The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

yoeddy

06-20-2012, 12:30 PM

If they are healthier than last year, they will rank higher.

hadenough

06-20-2012, 12:32 PM

It probably won't be...but they have had some horrific coaches within than span....Johnny Lynn, Tim Lewis and Bill Sheridan. Throughout the playoffs you saw what kind of defenese they can be...but they just don't do it on a consistent basis. I'll give last year a pass due to all the injuries...I'm curious to see how they do this year. They really have a ton of talent.

gmen0820

06-20-2012, 12:32 PM

Well, we can at least say we have the most SB wins since 2007.

barran21

06-20-2012, 12:42 PM

Well, we can at least say we have the most SB wins since 2007.

8-1 in the playoffs, most of any team since 2007...

thomsoad

06-20-2012, 12:46 PM

It probably won't be...but they have had some horrific coaches within than span....Johnny Lynn, Tim Lewis and Bill Sheridan.* Throughout the playoffs you saw what kind of defenese they can be...but they just don't do it on a consistent basis.* I'll give last year a pass due to all the injuries...I'm curious to see how they do this year.* They really have a ton of talent.

Perfectly said. Injuries devastated us last year and outside of Spags our DCs were awful.

njersey

06-20-2012, 12:47 PM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

If they are ranked below average, then how can they be overrated?

G-Man67

06-20-2012, 12:49 PM

it's good info .. thanks for putting it together

some bad years in there ... thanks a lot Bill Sheridan !!!

i guess for me it's about our ability to get to the QB when we are healthy and clicking, since that is really the only consistent way to defend the pass in today's NFL</P>

the thing with Defensive stats is... take a team like KC or Miami... they've been offensively challenged for awhile and haven't scored many points ... i bet they both look pretty solid statistically on D, but a big part of that is that their opponents have not had to really open things up to beat them</P>

you have to look at PPG, since it's arguably most important, however, there is some correlation between how many points you score and how many you give up .. if you are scoring on avg. in the high 20s, then even with a good D you will still give up in the low 20s on average as teams try to make comebacks on you</P>

i put little to no weight on yards per game ... it can be very misleading</P>

finally, sacks and takeaways are hugely important ... they are drive ending / game changing plays ... i know we will rank highly in sacks and im hoping we rank highly in takeaways ... i will evaluate our D on Ws vs. Ls, sacks and takeways ... most of all ... with PPG, i will look at it relative to PPG we score</P>

Itlan

06-20-2012, 12:57 PM

Those are two of the worst categories to rank a defense by. Advanced metric stats are generally superior.

giantsfan39

06-20-2012, 01:19 PM

PPG is the best ranking imo. And yes we have been mediocre in terms of this. Who is surprised by this? Poor DCs, injuries, lack of depth at certain positions(safety in 2009) and generally just underperforming. They turned it on in the two playoff runs and we allowed a ridiculously low number of points. In our two playoff runs we allowed 119 points an average of 14.9 points a game and this all while playing the 2007 Patriots and 2011 Packers two top 5 offenses of all time. On offense we scored 185 points for an average of 23.1 points per game. Hopefully the team avoids injuries, poor coaching (I think Fewell has understood how to make the defense work) and lack of heart and performs the entire year at the level we know it is capable of performing at.

NorwoodBlue

06-20-2012, 01:19 PM

In their playoff run starting with Dallas, I don't think the gave up more than 21 points in any game. They played well when it counted, and against some of the best offenses in football. Points given up is the measure of a defense, and they played better than anyone when it counted.

giantsfan39

06-20-2012, 01:21 PM

PPG is the best ranking imo. And yes we have been mediocre in terms of this. Who is surprised by this? Poor DCs, injuries, lack of depth at certain positions(safety in 2009) and generally just underperforming. They turned it on in the two playoff runs and we allowed a ridiculously low number of points. In our two playoff runs we allowed 119 points an average of 14.9 points a game and this all while playing the 2007 Patriots and 2011 Packers two top 5 offenses of all time. On offense we scored 185 points for an average of 23.1 points per game. Hopefully the team avoids injuries, poor coaching (I think Fewell has understood how to make the defense work) and lack of heart and performs the entire year at the level we know it is capable of performing at.

burier

06-20-2012, 01:22 PM

Oh and here we go with the injuries excuse again.

We had the best DE in the league and he played all 16 games.

Had no significant injuries in our secondary.

And we had either Justin Tuck or Osi in all but 2 games.

MattMeyerBud

06-20-2012, 01:23 PM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

</P>

</P>

two superbowl wins as wildcards in the past 5 years in which we shut down the top offenses in the league, which some were considered the greatest of all time?</P>

</P>

na</P>

we official</P>

FBomb

06-20-2012, 01:37 PM

The revolving doorto the DC office hasn't helped either.

dezzzR

06-20-2012, 01:50 PM

The defense hasnt been a dominate force(besides the last 6 games they played) since Spags left.
Last years defense gave up almost 1000 more yards than the dreaded 09 defense. They could not buy a 3 and out, were constantly on the field and gassed by the middle of the 3rd.

gumby742

06-20-2012, 01:52 PM

Don't think our defense was every over-rated until last season. We win the SB and all of a sudden people are talking as if we had one of the best defenses in the league.

thomsoad

06-20-2012, 01:53 PM

Oh and here we go with the injuries excuse again.

We had the best DE in the league and he played all 16 games.

Had no significant injuries in our secondary.

And we had either Justin Tuck or Osi in all but 2 games.
??
Im totally lost on this...is this referring to last year or some other year? Also, if last year is this supposed to be in red?

gumby742

06-20-2012, 01:54 PM

The defense hasnt been a dominate force(besides the last 6 games they played) since Spags left.
Last years defense gave up almost 1000 more yards than the dreaded 09 defense. They could not buy a 3 and out, were constantly on the field and gassed by the middle of the 3rd.
</P>

Can you imagine what Spags could do with the talent that we have on this defense? When he was here, he took a raggedy bunch and turned them into a top defense. Johnson, Butler, Clark, Wilkinson (or god knows who else started weakside, i honestly forget), etc?</P>

GreenZone

06-20-2012, 01:54 PM

There's a lot of excuses already in this thread.

When I put this together, honestly had little idea where it would result. It was a bit surprising to see that the team perform to the level of slightly lower than the exact middle of the pack.

The number of points allowed was even worse.

One of the even more impressive conclusions that can be drawn from this is the value of Eli and Kevin Gilbride, saving the team from a lot of the defensive lapses, particularly more recently.

Another conclusion is that when you hear the hype claiming: "We're stacked on defense" this season, remember, so were the Eagles "stacked" last pre-season.

My conclusion here is that the defense and its coaching staff has a whole lot to prove this season to themselves and everyone else. ...And yes, the playoff run did show some promise for much improvement this year, but the games still need to be played.

b_ELI_eve

06-20-2012, 01:59 PM

2008 was such a good year. I honestly feel like this year will be similar to 2008, but with different results in the playoffs. Our defense is better on paper and Perry will help translate that into a top 5 defense this year.

Going to be another great year to be a Giants fan

gumby742

06-20-2012, 02:01 PM

2008 was such a good year. I honestly feel like this year will be similar to 2008, but with different results in the playoffs. Our defense is better on paper and Perry will help translate that into a top 5 defense this year. Going to be another great year to be a Giants fan</P>

I have 0 faith in Fewell.</P>

G-Man67

06-20-2012, 02:08 PM

The defense hasnt been a dominate force(besides the last 6 games they played) since Spags left.
Last years defense gave up almost 1000 more yards than the dreaded 09 defense. They could not buy a 3 and out, were constantly on the field and gassed by the middle of the 3rd.
</P>

Can you imagine what Spags could do with the talent that we have on this defense? When he was here, he took a raggedy bunch and turned them into a top defense. Johnson, Butler, Clark, Wilkinson (or god knows who else started weakside, i honestly forget), etc?</P>

</P>

Osi, Strahan, Tuck, Cofield, Kiwi, AP, C-Web ... raggedy? ... Spags did a nice job, but he didn't tackle anyone ... give that group it's due ... they shut down what was already being labeled the greatest team ever ... and they didn't do it with smoke and mirrors ... they physically beat the Pats down</P>

b_ELI_eve

06-20-2012, 02:09 PM

2008 was such a good year. I honestly feel like this year will be similar to 2008, but with different results in the playoffs. Our defense is better on paper and Perry will help translate that into a top 5 defense this year. Going to be another great year to be a Giants fan</P>

I have 0 faith in Fewell.</P>

I don't understand how you could absolutely no faith in him. The playoffs weren't a streak of luck for our defense.

With a healthy defense (Tuck,Osi, KP, TT, Prince) and Rolle actually playing his position this year, Perry will be more comfortable and creative.

redbeardxxv

06-20-2012, 02:10 PM

Well, we can at least say we have the most SB wins since 2007.

WE can say "Most SB wins since 1986" with 4...

gumby742

06-20-2012, 02:14 PM

2008 was such a good year. I honestly feel like this year will be similar to 2008, but with different results in the playoffs. Our defense is better on paper and Perry will help translate that into a top 5 defense this year. Going to be another great year to be a Giants fan</P>

I have 0 faith in Fewell.</P>

I don't understand how you could absolutely no faith in him. The playoffs weren't a streak of luck for our defense. With a healthy defense (Tuck,Osi, KP, TT, Prince) and Rolle actually playing his position this year, Perry will be more comfortable and creative.</P>

I'm not buying this injury excuse.</P>

We lost a good chunk of our defense before the season already started.</P>

You tell me what changed between the beginning and end of the season. The only real difference was Osi started playing well again and Blackburn. </P>

And if that makes or breaks your defense, then you aren't a very good co-ordinator. If it explains a drop from tops to average/above average, that's acceptable. A drop from tops to bottom - no freaking way.</P>

yoeddy

06-20-2012, 02:15 PM

2008 was such a good year. I honestly feel like this year will be similar to 2008, but with different results in the playoffs. Our defense is better on paper and Perry will help translate that into a top 5 defense this year. Going to be another great year to be a Giants fan</P>

I have 0 faith in Fewell.</P>

I don't understand how you could absolutely no faith in him. The playoffs weren't a streak of luck for our defense. With a healthy defense (Tuck,Osi, KP, TT, Prince) and Rolle actually playing his position this year, Perry will be more comfortable and creative.</P>

I'm not buying this injury excuse.</P>

We lost a good chunk of our defense before the season already started.</P>

You tell me what changed between the beginning and end of the season.* The only real difference was Osi started playing well again and Blackburn.* </P>

And if that makes or breaks your defense, then you aren't a very good co-ordinator.* If it explains a drop from tops to average/above average, that's acceptable.* A drop from tops to bottom - no freaking way.</P>

2008 was such a good year. I honestly feel like this year will be similar to 2008, but with different results in the playoffs. Our defense is better on paper and Perry will help translate that into a top 5 defense this year. Going to be another great year to be a Giants fan</P>

I have 0 faith in Fewell.</P>

I don't understand how you could absolutely no faith in him. The playoffs weren't a streak of luck for our defense. With a healthy defense (Tuck,Osi, KP, TT, Prince) and Rolle actually playing his position this year, Perry will be more comfortable and creative.</P>

I'm not buying this injury excuse.</P>

We lost a good chunk of our defense before the season already started.</P>

You tell me what changed between the beginning and end of the season. The only real difference was Osi started playing well again and Blackburn. </P>

And if that makes or breaks your defense, then you aren't a very good co-ordinator. If it explains a drop from tops to average/above average, that's acceptable. A drop from tops to bottom - no freaking way.</P>

I don't think it was ever known if Tuck got better. As far as I remember, all we heard was Rolle said something along the lines of, "We all know your hurt, but just go out there and do your best." And i highly doubt that Tuck was healthier towards the end of the season than the beginning.</P>

burier

06-20-2012, 02:25 PM

2008 was such a good year. I honestly feel like this year will be similar to 2008, but with different results in the playoffs. Our defense is better on paper and Perry will help translate that into a top 5 defense this year. Going to be another great year to be a Giants fan</P>

I have 0 faith in Fewell.</P>

I don't understand how you could absolutely no faith in him. The playoffs weren't a streak of luck for our defense. With a healthy defense (Tuck,Osi, KP, TT, Prince) and Rolle actually playing his position this year, Perry will be more comfortable and creative.</P>

I'm not buying this injury excuse.</P>

We lost a good chunk of our defense before the season already started.</P>

You tell me what changed between the beginning and end of the season.* The only real difference was Osi started playing well again and Blackburn.* </P>

And if that makes or breaks your defense, then you aren't a very good co-ordinator.* If it explains a drop from tops to average/above average, that's acceptable.* A drop from tops to bottom - no freaking way.</P>

I don't think it was ever known if Tuck got better.* As far as I remember, all we heard was Rolle said something along the lines of, "We all know your hurt, but just go out there and do your best."* And i highly doubt that Tuck was healthier towards the end of the season than the beginning.</P>

He wasn't healthier and he said as much.

Rolle made the comment about people not practicing.

Then Tuck said that a "friend" told him to cut the crap and poof.

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 02:26 PM

lmfao remember when people were actually blaming eli for the defenses shortcomings? lmfao...

our d will be fine. stats dont tell the whole story necessarily.
as others have pointed out, during that 6 game win streak, i'd bet our d ranked 1 in the league, and if u were to compare that 6 game streak defensive play (stats) to any other defenses best 6 game streak at any point during the season, our d would blow those away...

pf was handcuffed, injuries and it IS a valid excuse or reason. i dunno why this has to be repeated so often, but in the last decade, only TWO teams had injuries to starters and key reserves that we had last season; a winless Lions team, and an awful Bills team...that should tell those who expected our D to play at a high level and dismiss the injuries that they arent being reasonable or rational

buffyblue

06-20-2012, 02:29 PM

Antrell Rolle called folks out but Coach Coughlin also had the talk with JustinTuck about making it through the aches and pains and becoming the leader on defense we needed. Justin Tuck publically addressed some of his self doubts and he overcame them. It showed a lot of courage to do what he did.

We have problems on defense and I think that as a whole, they need to be better and more consistent this season if we hope to repeat. Hopefully now that NY Giants FO has paid Osi Umenyora’s ramson, he will be a positive example in the lockerroom for the other guys.

gumby742

06-20-2012, 02:30 PM

lmfao remember when people were actually blaming eli for the defenses shortcomings? lmfao... our d will be fine. stats dont tell the whole story necessarily. as others have pointed out, during that 6 game win streak, i'd bet our d ranked 1 in the league, and if u were to compare that 6 game streak defensive play (stats) to any other defenses best 6 game streak at any point during the season, our d would blow those away... pf was handcuffed, injuries and it IS a valid excuse or reason. i dunno why this has to be repeated so often, but in the last decade, only TWO teams had injuries to starters and key reserves that we had last season; a winless Lions team, and an awful Bills team...that should tell those who expected our D to play at a high level and dismiss the injuries that they arent being reasonable or rational</P>

1) I can care less about Eli. I don't remember anyone blaming Eli for our defense.</P>

2) Our defense was great for 6 games, but what about the rest of the season. You have to look at the entire season to evaluate performance. And you're right, stats don't tell the entire story. I think we were actually worse then what the stats actually were.</P>

3) Explain how fewell was handcuffed with injury when we were terrible at the start of the season, but were great at the end. The majority of our injuries happened BEFORE the season even started. The difference in personnel from the beginning to the end of the season was marginal.</P>

TuckYou

06-20-2012, 02:34 PM

Further proof our best team was 2008. We had a great shot at repeating, no pun intended.

gumby742

06-20-2012, 02:36 PM

Further proof our best team was 2008. We had a great shot at repeating, no pun intended.+100000

Toadofsteel

06-20-2012, 02:41 PM

The big thing I don't like about PF is that he likes to manage his defense from the back end first. He's concerned with coverage packages over everything else and only with the nascar package to bring 4-man pressure as if it was 7-man pressure did we do anything to opposing QB's. Spags was blitzing all day, changing up who was blitzing and who was dropping into coverage, and he destroyed the Patriots' "fortress of solitude" offensive line with it.

The Giants defense is built from the front end first, and we need a DC that can manage it from that end. PF is NOT that person. Maybe he'd do a spectacular job on another defense but he's just not a good fit with the Giants. I'd still take him over Sheridan though...

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 02:41 PM

lmfao remember when people were actually blaming eli for the defenses shortcomings? lmfao... our d will be fine. stats dont tell the whole story necessarily. as others have pointed out, during that 6 game win streak, i'd bet our d ranked 1 in the league, and if u were to compare that 6 game streak defensive play (stats) to any other defenses best 6 game streak at any point during the season, our d would blow those away... pf was handcuffed, injuries and it IS a valid excuse or reason. i dunno why this has to be repeated so often, but in the last decade, only TWO teams had injuries to starters and key reserves that we had last season; a winless Lions team, and an awful Bills team...that should tell those who expected our D to play at a high level and dismiss the injuries that they arent being reasonable or rational</P>

1)* I can care less about Eli.* I don't remember anyone blaming Eli for our defense.</P>

2)* Our defense was great for 6 games, but what about the rest of the season.* You have to look at the entire season to evaluate performance.* And you're right, stats don't tell the entire story.* I think we were actually worse then what the stats actually were.</P>

3)* Explain how fewell was handcuffed with injury when we were terrible at the start of the season, but were great at the end.* The majority of our injuries happened BEFORE the season even started.* The difference in personnel from the beginning to the end of the season was marginal.</P>

1-i was just recalling how funny it was a few seasons ago when posters like yourself would say the defenses shortcomings were bc of eli. i found it lol funny.

3-thats easy. PF himself, along with the players (DB's) were vocal for much of the struggles that the defense was too complicated and didnt utilize their skill sets enough. when we were in that streak, pf and the db's were vocal in stating how PF simplified things. And, for backups backup, that makes sense. and our defense wasnt horrible all season up until that win streak. we did pretty well early the season on the way to a 6-2 record.
then the death part of our schedule vs the leagues best offenses happened and just crippled the players confidence and mentality.

gumby742

06-20-2012, 02:53 PM

lmfao remember when people were actually blaming eli for the defenses shortcomings? lmfao... our d will be fine. stats dont tell the whole story necessarily. as others have pointed out, during that 6 game win streak, i'd bet our d ranked 1 in the league, and if u were to compare that 6 game streak defensive play (stats) to any other defenses best 6 game streak at any point during the season, our d would blow those away... <U>pf was handcuffed, injuries and it IS a valid excuse or reason</U>. i dunno why this has to be repeated so often, but in the last decade, only TWO teams had injuries to starters and key reserves that we had last season; a winless Lions team, and an awful Bills team...that should tell those who expected our D to play at a high level and dismiss the injuries that they arent being reasonable or rational</P>

1) I can care less about Eli. I don't remember anyone blaming Eli for our defense.</P>

2) Our defense was great for 6 games, but what about the rest of the season. You have to look at the entire season to evaluate performance. And you're right, stats don't tell the entire story. I think we were actually worse then what the stats actually were.</P>

3) Explain how fewell was handcuffed with injury when we were terrible at the start of the season, but were great at the end. The majority of our injuries happened BEFORE the season even started. The difference in personnel from the beginning to the end of the season was marginal.</P>

1-i was just recalling how funny it was a few seasons ago when posters like yourself would say the defenses shortcomings were bc of eli. i found it lol funny. 3-thats easy. PF himself, along with the players (DB's) were vocal <U>for much of the struggles that the defense was too complicated and didnt utilize their skill sets enough</U>. when we were in that streak, pf and the db's were vocal in stating how PF simplified things. And, for backups backup, that makes sense. and our defense wasnt horrible all season up until that win streak. we did pretty well early the season on the way to a 6-2 record. then the death part of our schedule vs the leagues best offenses happened and just crippled the players confidence and mentality.</P>

1) Short of obvious trolls like CantBlameShockeyNow, no one in their right mind would blame defensive failure soley on Eli. Now if you want to say people pointed out that the offense didn't show up in a certain game and turned it over too many times, that was definitely said. But still, no one said anything about Eli. This is just another example of you getting defensive about Eli and making something out of nothing. </P>

3) Before, You said that injuries was a valid excuse and that it was the reason for our defenses poor play. Now you're saying that the defense was too complicated etc? Which one is it? Well, that just supports my opinion that I have no faith in Fewell's abilities.</P>

yoeddy

06-20-2012, 03:31 PM

The big thing I don't like about PF is that he likes to manage his defense from the back end first. He's concerned with coverage packages over everything else and only with the nascar package to bring 4-man pressure as if it was 7-man pressure did we do anything to opposing QB's. Spags was blitzing all day, changing up who was blitzing and who was dropping into coverage, and he destroyed the Patriots' "fortress of solitude" offensive line with it.

The Giants defense is built from the front end first, and we need a DC that can manage it from that end. PF is NOT that person. Maybe he'd do a spectacular job on another defense but he's just not a good fit with the Giants. I'd still take him over Sheridan though...

I think he looked at all the injuries we had in the secondary and figured that it was better to help the coverage by keeping an extra defender back....and leverage the fact that our front 4 was built to be able to pressure the QB without blitzing. If we hadn't lost all of those DBs, he might have been more creative...

jakegibbs

06-20-2012, 03:35 PM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

Very Good now if only we could lay the offensive rankings by each year I think you'd see a pattern right?

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 03:39 PM

lmfao remember when people were actually blaming eli for the defenses shortcomings? lmfao... our d will be fine. stats dont tell the whole story necessarily. as others have pointed out, during that 6 game win streak, i'd bet our d ranked 1 in the league, and if u were to compare that 6 game streak defensive play (stats) to any other defenses best 6 game streak at any point during the season, our d would blow those away... <U>pf was handcuffed, injuries and it IS a valid excuse or reason</U>. i dunno why this has to be repeated so often, but in the last decade, only TWO teams had injuries to starters and key reserves that we had last season; a winless Lions team, and an awful Bills team...that should tell those who expected our D to play at a high level and dismiss the injuries that they arent being reasonable or rational</P>

1)* I can care less about Eli.* I don't remember anyone blaming Eli for our defense.</P>

2)* Our defense was great for 6 games, but what about the rest of the season.* You have to look at the entire season to evaluate performance.* And you're right, stats don't tell the entire story.* I think we were actually worse then what the stats actually were.</P>

3)* Explain how fewell was handcuffed with injury when we were terrible at the start of the season, but were great at the end.* The majority of our injuries happened BEFORE the season even started.* The difference in personnel from the beginning to the end of the season was marginal.</P>

1-i was just recalling how funny it was a few seasons ago when posters like yourself would say the defenses shortcomings were bc of eli. i found it lol funny. 3-thats easy. PF himself, along with the players (DB's) were vocal <U>for much of the struggles that the defense was too complicated and didnt utilize their skill sets enough</U>. when we were in that streak, pf and the db's were vocal in stating how PF simplified things. And, for backups backup, that makes sense. and our defense wasnt horrible all season up until that win streak. we did pretty well early the season on the way to a 6-2 record. then the death part of our schedule vs the leagues best offenses happened and just crippled the players confidence and mentality.</P>

1)* Short of obvious trolls like CantBlameShockeyNow, no one in their right mind would blame defensive failure soley on Eli.* Now if you want to say people pointed out that the offense didn't show up in a certain game and turned it over too many times, that was definitely said.* But still, no one said anything about Eli.* This is just another example of you getting defensive about Eli and making something out of nothing.* </P>

3)* Before, You said that injuries was a valid excuse and that it was the reason for our defenses poor play.* Now you're saying that the defense was too complicated etc?* Which one is it?* Well, that just supports my opinion that I* have no faith in Fewell's abilities.</P>

lmfao. whatever u say....seems to me ur getting defensive. im laughing my *** off how "certain" posters would blame eli for the defenses shortcomings ex. "field position" "not burning enough clock" "burning too much clock"...u can pretend like it didnt happen...it did, and its ****ing hilarious. so im not defensive at all, in fact i thank you. you provided me with some epic laughs.

u have comprehension issues huh? the defensive scheme was complicated to our backups to the backups. they didnt and dont get first team reps, in fact, they are often used as scout team defenses, or are given little attention to in situations a starter would see.

the players, pf, and tc were vocal about simplifying things for the players who hadnt been involved in the defense as long as others....injuries def. contributes to that.

but i honestly could give 2 ****s what u think, im merely stating that those who overlook the injuries and go "so???so what about injuries?" are wrong, and its not my opinion but that of TC, PF, and the players...

something tells me in a season or two, i'll be able to look back on ur "i have zero confidence in PF" and the "so what? injuries? who cares?" and have a nice little laugh like so many of ur other thoughts

again tho, nice how u overlook the key info in all this. THE TWO OTHER TEAMS TO HAVE SIMILAR INJURY SITUATIONS TO STARTERS AND KEY DEPTH WAS THE WINLESS LIONS AND A ****TY BILLS TEAM...nah, injuries dont play a factor in it at all...

and the defensive rankings are skewed bc of that brutal stretch of opponents.

i dont think the d allowed more than 21 pts until week 9...week 14 on they were lights out...the d isnt as bad as u make it out to be. as usual, ur opinion is skewed bc u base ur opinion solely on stats, and irrelevant stats at that most of the time.

jakegibbs

06-20-2012, 03:58 PM

Total Offense
Is there a pattern here somewhere. Like the better the offense the worse the defense or no?

The big thing I don't like about PF is that he likes to manage his defense from the back end first. He's concerned with coverage packages over everything else and only with the nascar package to bring 4-man pressure as if it was 7-man pressure did we do anything to opposing QB's. Spags was blitzing all day, changing up who was blitzing and who was dropping into coverage, and he destroyed the Patriots' "fortress of solitude" offensive line with it. The Giants defense is built from the front end first, and we need a DC that can manage it from that end. PF is NOT that person. Maybe he'd do a spectacular job on another defense but he's just not a good fit with the Giants. I'd still take him over Sheridan though...</P>

I still think Spags is one of the best (if not the best) dc we EVER had (bold statement I know). We all saw how Tim Lewis and Bill Sheridan were before and after him with a bunch of core players being the same.He was the perfect combination of being motivational,consistant, disiplinedand being a players coach. They all loved the guy. And after the first few games he was a DC where we gave up 80 points in 2 games, he was outstanding. Those 2008 stats show you how good he was cause that was without Strahan, Kiwi, JPP or Canty manning the DLine, and with a bunch of injuries. His system was one of the best we ever had. I would welcome him back here with open arms. </P>

Fewell is not as consistant with the pressure, which costs us a lot. Sending 3 at Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers on a 3rd and long should not be done, yet we did it over and over, and failed 90% of the time to stop it. He is a solid DC, but isnt anywhere near Spags.</P>

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 04:29 PM

The big thing I don't like about PF is that he likes to manage his defense from the back end first. He's concerned with coverage packages over everything else and only with the nascar package to bring 4-man pressure as if it was 7-man pressure did we do anything to opposing QB's. Spags was blitzing all day, changing up who was blitzing and who was dropping into coverage, and he destroyed the Patriots' "fortress of solitude" offensive line with it. The Giants defense is built from the front end first, and we need a DC that can manage it from that end. PF is NOT that person. Maybe he'd do a spectacular job on another defense but he's just not a good fit with the Giants. I'd still take him over Sheridan though...</P>

I still think Spags is one of the best (if not the best) dc we EVER had (bold statement I know). We all saw how Tim Lewis and Bill Sheridan were before and after him with a bunch of core players being the same.*He was the perfect combination of being motivational,*consistant, disiplined*and being a players coach. They all loved the guy. And after the first few games he was a DC where we gave up 80 points in 2 games, he was outstanding. Those 2008 stats show you how good he was cause that was without Strahan, Kiwi, JPP or Canty manning the DLine, and with a bunch of injuries. His system was one of the best we ever had. I would welcome him back here with open arms. </P>

Fewell is not as consistant with the pressure, which costs us a lot. Sending 3 at Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers on a 3rd and long should not be done, yet we did it over and over, and failed 90% of the time to stop it. He is a solid DC, but isnt anywhere near Spags.</P>

agreed...spags was prob one of the top 2 coordinators we've had in the last 30 yrs if not history of the gmen...we had landry and lombardi but i dont know much of what their jobs were when they were with the org.

Drez

06-20-2012, 04:32 PM

Oh and here we go with the injuries excuse again.

We had the best DE in the league and he played all 16 games.

Had no significant injuries in our secondary.

And we had either Justin Tuck or Osi in all but 2 games.
I guess having the 3rd highest games lost on defense in the past decade means we were perfectly healthy all season.
*Sigh*

Drez

06-20-2012, 04:33 PM

I still think Spags is one of the best (if not the best) dc we EVER had (bold statement I know).</p>

I think I'm going to have to go with BB for that honor.
</p>

buffyblue

06-20-2012, 04:34 PM

The big thing I don't like about PF is that he likes to manage his defense from the back end first. He's concerned with coverage packages over everything else and only with the nascar package to bring 4-man pressure as if it was 7-man pressure did we do anything to opposing QB's. Spags was blitzing all day, changing up who was blitzing and who was dropping into coverage, and he destroyed the Patriots' "fortress of solitude" offensive line with it. The Giants defense is built from the front end first, and we need a DC that can manage it from that end. PF is NOT that person. Maybe he'd do a spectacular job on another defense but he's just not a good fit with the Giants. I'd still take him over Sheridan though...</P>

I still think Spags is one of the best (if not the best) dc we EVER had (bold statement I know). We all saw how Tim Lewis and Bill Sheridan were before and after him with a bunch of core players being the same.*He was the perfect combination of being motivational,*consistant, disiplined*and being a players coach. They all loved the guy. And after the first few games he was a DC where we gave up 80 points in 2 games, he was outstanding. Those 2008 stats show you how good he was cause that was without Strahan, Kiwi, JPP or Canty manning the DLine, and with a bunch of injuries. His system was one of the best we ever had. I would welcome him back here with open arms. </P>

Fewell is not as consistant with the pressure, which costs us a lot. Sending 3 at Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers on a 3rd and long should not be done, yet we did it over and over, and failed 90% of the time to stop it. He is a solid DC, but isnt anywhere near Spags.</P>

agreed...spags was prob one of the top 2 coordinators we've had in the last 30 yrs if not history of the gmen...we had landry and lombardi but i dont know much of what their jobs were when they were with the org.

Don’t you realize that Eli Manning is to blame for our sub par defense?

Seriously it is his fault. He should not have allowed Perry Fewell to get hired. He should have been on top of the defenses conditioning program so that they would be better prepared and not have as many injuries. Eli Manning should not play ball control offense so that defense can have no break because that throws them off their rythym.

Heck, Eli Manning is even to blame for the defense collapse against Philadelphia as well as the for the defense quitting on national TV against NO Saints.

It is all Eli Mannings fault.

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 04:37 PM

Oh and here we go with the injuries excuse again.

We had the best DE in the league and he played all 16 games.

Had no significant injuries in our secondary.

And we had either Justin Tuck or Osi in all but 2 games.
I guess having the 3rd highest games lost on defense in the past decade means we were perfectly healthy all season.
*Sigh*

for some reason we have to keep repeating that over and over. and the other two teams were the winless lions and ****ty bills team...how is this not resonating with these folk

and well done buffy lmfao...que you know who in 5...4...3...2...1

gumby742

06-20-2012, 04:42 PM

lmfao remember when people were actually blaming eli for the defenses shortcomings? lmfao... our d will be fine. stats dont tell the whole story necessarily. as others have pointed out, during that 6 game win streak, i'd bet our d ranked 1 in the league, and if u were to compare that 6 game streak defensive play (stats) to any other defenses best 6 game streak at any point during the season, our d would blow those away... <U>pf was handcuffed, injuries and it IS a valid excuse or reason</U>. i dunno why this has to be repeated so often, but in the last decade, only TWO teams had injuries to starters and key reserves that we had last season; a winless Lions team, and an awful Bills team...that should tell those who expected our D to play at a high level and dismiss the injuries that they arent being reasonable or rational</P>

1) I can care less about Eli. I don't remember anyone blaming Eli for our defense.</P>

2) Our defense was great for 6 games, but what about the rest of the season. You have to look at the entire season to evaluate performance. And you're right, stats don't tell the entire story. I think we were actually worse then what the stats actually were.</P>

3) Explain how fewell was handcuffed with injury when we were terrible at the start of the season, but were great at the end. The majority of our injuries happened BEFORE the season even started. The difference in personnel from the beginning to the end of the season was marginal.</P>

1-i was just recalling how funny it was a few seasons ago when posters like yourself would say the defenses shortcomings were bc of eli. i found it lol funny. 3-thats easy. PF himself, along with the players (DB's) were vocal <U>for much of the struggles that the defense was too complicated and didnt utilize their skill sets enough</U>. when we were in that streak, pf and the db's were vocal in stating how PF simplified things. And, for backups backup, that makes sense. and our defense wasnt horrible all season up until that win streak. we did pretty well early the season on the way to a 6-2 record. then the death part of our schedule vs the leagues best offenses happened and just crippled the players confidence and mentality.</P>

1) Short of obvious trolls like CantBlameShockeyNow, no one in their right mind would blame defensive failure soley on Eli. Now if you want to say people pointed out that the offense didn't show up in a certain game and turned it over too many times, that was definitely said. But still, no one said anything about Eli. This is just another example of you getting defensive about Eli and making something out of nothing. </P>

3) Before, You said that injuries was a valid excuse and that it was the reason for our defenses poor play. Now you're saying that the defense was too complicated etc? Which one is it? Well, that just supports my opinion that I have no faith in Fewell's abilities.</P>

lmfao. whatever u say....seems to me ur getting defensive. im laughing my *** off how "certain" posters would blame eli for the defenses shortcomings ex. "field position" "not burning enough clock" "burning too much clock"...u can pretend like it didnt happen...it did, and its ****ing hilarious. so im not defensive at all, in fact i thank you. you provided me with some epic laughs. u have comprehension issues huh? the defensive scheme was complicated to our backups to the backups. they didnt and dont get first team reps, in fact, they are often used as scout team defenses, or are given little attention to in situations a starter would see. the players, pf, and tc were vocal about simplifying things for the players who hadnt been involved in the defense as long as others....injuries def. contributes to that. but i honestly could give 2 ****s what u think, im merely stating that those who overlook the injuries and go "so???so what about injuries?" are wrong, and its not my opinion but that of TC, PF, and the players... something tells me in a season or two, i'll be able to look back on ur "i have zero confidence in PF" and the "so what? injuries? who cares?" and have a nice little laugh like so many of ur other thoughts again tho, nice how u overlook the key info in all this. THE TWO OTHER TEAMS TO HAVE SIMILAR INJURY SITUATIONS TO STARTERS AND KEY DEPTH WAS THE WINLESS LIONS AND A ****TY BILLS TEAM...nah, injuries dont play a factor in it at all... and the defensive rankings are skewed bc of that brutal stretch of opponents. i dont think the d allowed more than 21 pts until week 9...week 14 on they were lights out...the d isnt as bad as u make it out to be. as usual, ur opinion is skewed bc u base ur opinion solely on stats, and irrelevant stats at that most of the time.</P>

Re-read my post. As for the rest, I have no idea what you just said. English please.</P>

GreenZone

06-20-2012, 04:42 PM

The reason why these stats matter right now has nothing to do with finding blame for mediocrity of the past.

It is to show that the defense, as a whole unit, is going to need to prove something to the world that they are of championship caliber. It has been the offense carrying the load for the most part, and while the potential is there right now...and the defense played well overall in the playoffs (sometimes superbly), it's a brand new season.

Many teams don't survive their own egos after a championship nowadays. Brandon Jacobs recently admitted he was a case in point in 2008.

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 04:43 PM

GUMBY-
so u do have reading comprehension issues? how cant u understand this :
___________________________________
lmfao. whatever u say....seems to me ur getting defensive. im laughing my *** off how "certain" posters would blame eli for the defenses shortcomings ex. "field position" "not burning enough clock" "burning too much clock"...u can pretend like it didnt happen...it did, and its *** hilarious. so im not defensive at all, in fact i thank you. you provided me with some epic laughs.

u have comprehension issues huh? the defensive scheme was complicated to our backups to the backups. they didnt and dont get first team reps, in fact, they are often used as scout team defenses, or are given little attention to in situations a starter would see.

the players, pf, and tc were vocal about simplifying things for the players who hadnt been involved in the defense as long as others....injuries def. contributes to that.

but i honestly could give 2 *** what u think, im merely stating that those who overlook the injuries and go "so???so what about injuries?" are wrong, and its not my opinion but that of TC, PF, and the players...

something tells me in a season or two, i'll be able to look back on ur "i have zero confidence in PF" and the "so what? injuries? who cares?" and have a nice little laugh like so many of ur other thoughts

again tho, nice how u overlook the key info in all this. THE TWO OTHER TEAMS TO HAVE SIMILAR INJURY SITUATIONS TO STARTERS AND KEY DEPTH WAS THE WINLESS LIONS AND A *** BILLS TEAM...nah, injuries dont play a factor in it at all...

and the defensive rankings are skewed bc of that brutal stretch of opponents.

i dont think the d allowed more than 21 pts until week 9...week 14 on they were lights out...the d isnt as bad as u make it out to be. as usual, ur opinion is skewed bc u base ur opinion solely on stats, and irrelevant stats at that most of the time.

___________________________________
if ur unable to understand that post theres no more reason for us to continue on...honestly theres not a reason too anyways. but if u cant comprehend that then theres no need to respond to me.

Morehead State

06-20-2012, 04:49 PM

Further proof our best team was 2008. We had a great shot at repeating, no pun intended.</P>

Well if the removal of one WR, who was having a sub par season, can cause your team to fall apart, then maybe the team wasn't as good as we all thought.</P>

Redeyejedi

06-20-2012, 05:00 PM

The Sacking Wounded

Every team must deal with injuries, but few teams in history have had to deal with the number of injuries the Giants suffered on defense this year.
At Football Outsiders, we use a metric called Adjusted Games Lost (AGL) to determine how severe a team’s injury situation has been. AGL separates starters and key reserves from subs, so an injury to Umenyiora or another starter gets more weight than one to some seldom-used backup.

It also accounts for weeks when a player is listed as “questionable” or “probable” but still takes the field, so when someone like Tuck shakes off a toe injury and takes the field in a limited role, it counts as a partial injury.

AGL is a great argument settler, because it takes conversations past the “who cares about your whole linebacker corps, we lost our punt returner” stage.

The Giants are on pace to finish the season with the third-highest defensive AGL of the last decade, behind only the 2008 Lions (who went 0-16) and the 2009 Bills (who went 6-10 and got their coach fired). Through Week 14, they lost the equivalent of 58.9 games by starters to injuries. That means the Giants go into the average game missing four defensive starters and key reserves.

They have entered some games in far worse shape. Cornerback Corey Webster and safety Antrel Rolle are the only defenders to start all 15 games. The Giants lost top cornerback Terrell Thomas to an ACL injury in the middle of training camp. The mix-and-match job at linebacker has forced special teams ace Chase Blackburn to start a handful of games, and undrafted rookie Mark Herzlich climbed all the way to the starting middle linebacker job before suffering an injury of his own.

The front four has been hit as hard as any other unit. Rookie tackle Marvin Austin was lost in training camp. Tuck and Umenyiora have only taken a handful of snaps together. The front four has been able to maintain its high standard of play because Perry Fewell has found creative ways to use his best players, creating confusion and applying pass pressure without resorting to rampant blitzing.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45807356/ns/sports-nfl/

Redeyejedi

06-20-2012, 05:02 PM

Further proof our best team was 2008. We had a great shot at repeating, no pun intended.</P>

Well if the removal of one WR, who was having a sub par season, can cause your team to fall apart, then maybe the team wasn't as good as we all thought.</P>Way to much emphasis focused on 1 player in the passing game. Giants didnt make that mistake when they rebuilt it. They almost had a complete reinvention of the identity of the team on offense. Pretty impressive how they won being a beastly running team in 2008 only to win with an explosive passing offense 4 years later

gumby742

06-20-2012, 05:09 PM

GUMBY- so u do have reading comprehension issues? how cant u understand this : lmfao. whatever u say....seems to me ur getting defensive. im laughing my *** off how "certain" posters would blame eli for the defenses shortcomings ex. "field position" "not burning enough clock" "burning too much clock"...u can pretend like it didnt happen...it did, and its *** hilarious. so im not defensive at all, in fact i thank you. you provided me with some epic laughs. u have comprehension issues huh? the defensive scheme was complicated to our backups to the backups. they didnt and dont get first team reps, in fact, they are often used as scout team defenses, or are given little attention to in situations a starter would see. the players, pf, and tc were vocal about simplifying things for the players who hadnt been involved in the defense as long as others....injuries def. contributes to that. but i honestly could give 2 *** what u think, im merely stating that those who overlook the injuries and go "so???so what about injuries?" are wrong, and its not my opinion but that of TC, PF, and the players... something tells me in a season or two, i'll be able to look back on ur "i have zero confidence in PF" and the "so what? injuries? who cares?" and have a nice little laugh like so many of ur other thoughts again tho, nice how u overlook the key info in all this. THE TWO OTHER TEAMS TO HAVE SIMILAR INJURY SITUATIONS TO STARTERS AND KEY DEPTH WAS THE WINLESS LIONS AND A *** BILLS TEAM...nah, injuries dont play a factor in it at all... and the defensive rankings are skewed bc of that brutal stretch of opponents. i dont think the d allowed more than 21 pts until week 9...week 14 on they were lights out...the d isnt as bad as u make it out to be. as usual, ur opinion is skewed bc u base ur opinion solely on stats, and irrelevant stats at that most of the time. ___________________________________ if ur unable to understand that post theres no more reason for us to continue on...honestly theres not a reason too anyways. but if u cant comprehend that then theres no need to respond to me.</P>

I honestly don't have the time to try and decipher what you just wrote. It's far too fragmented. Try reading what I'm writing instead of reacting.</P>

1) No one is saying that Eli <U>himself </U>wasn't never blamed for the defense giving up points etc. I'm agreeing with you. <U>It did happen</U>. What I'm saying is that it was from obvious trolls like CantBlameShockeyNow. I never said any such crazy things. What I did say however is that, "The offense did the defense no favors by turning it over X times". Now if you can't tell the difference between the former and the latter, i can't help you there.</P>

2) Look back on previous posts. We were all talking about <U>injury</U>. Your first response to me was about <U>injury</U>. Then for whatever reason you started talking about <U>defensive scheme and philosophy</U> out of left field. How do you expect anyone to decipher your thought process?</P>

3) If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that the difference between the start and end of the season wasn't all that large personnel wise. <U>Read</U></P>

4) I have 0 confidence in Fewell. What's so funny? I made no judgement. I never said he was a bad coordinator. Just based on his past track record, I don't have faith in him going into next season.</P>

5) Only a person with blue blinders on would tell you that our defense wasn't awful the majority of the regular season. And using only 6 games as a basis for your decision is near sighted.</P>

Morehead State

06-20-2012, 05:11 PM

Further proof our best team was 2008. We had a great shot at repeating, no pun intended.</P>

Well if the removal of one WR, who was having a sub par season, can cause your team to fall apart, then maybe the team wasn't as good as we all thought.</P>

Way to much emphasis focused on 1 player in the passing game. Giants didnt make that mistake when they rebuilt it. They almost had a complete reinvention of the identity of the team on offense. Pretty impressive how they won being a beastly running team in 2008 only to win with an explosive passing offense 4 years later</P>

Actually my point was that everyone was blaming the Plaxico shooting as the reason we fell apart. We had so very good offensive games when he was out. He played one play at Zona then got hurt and we scored a boatload of points. He was suspended for the Seattle game and we put up 40+.</P>

What really happened was that our team wasn't as good as we thought. Losing Osi in the pre season along with Strahan's retirement put a hole in our DE rotation. And the offense was exposed as well as the season progressed. Teams just figured out how to beat us because we were beatable.</P>

Not scoring a TD at home in the playoffs showed that we really weren't that good. We won one game in our last 6.</P>

gumby742

06-20-2012, 05:17 PM

The Sacking Wounded Every team must deal with injuries, but few teams in history have had to deal with the number of injuries the Giants suffered on defense this year. At Football Outsiders, we use a metric called Adjusted Games Lost (AGL) to determine how severe a team’s injury situation has been. AGL separates starters and key reserves from subs, so an injury to Umenyiora or another starter gets more weight than one to some seldom-used backup. It also accounts for weeks when a player is listed as “questionable” or “probable” but still takes the field, so when someone like Tuck shakes off a toe injury and takes the field in a limited role, it counts as a partial injury. AGL is a great argument settler, because it takes conversations past the “who cares about your whole linebacker corps, we lost our punt returner” stage. The Giants are on pace to finish the season with the third-highest defensive AGL of the last decade, behind only the 2008 Lions (who went 0-16) and the 2009 Bills (who went 6-10 and got their coach fired). Through Week 14, they lost the equivalent of 58.9 games by starters to injuries. That means the Giants go into the average game missing four defensive starters and key reserves. They have entered some games in far worse shape. Cornerback Corey Webster and safety Antrel Rolle are the only defenders to start all 15 games. The Giants lost top cornerback Terrell Thomas to an ACL injury in the middle of training camp. The mix-and-match job at linebacker has forced special teams ace Chase Blackburn to start a handful of games, and undrafted rookie Mark Herzlich climbed all the way to the starting middle linebacker job before suffering an injury of his own. The front four has been hit as hard as any other unit. Rookie tackle Marvin Austin was lost in training camp. Tuck and Umenyiora have only taken a handful of snaps together. The front four has been able to maintain its high standard of play because Perry Fewell has found creative ways to use his best players, creating confusion and applying pass pressure without resorting to rampant blitzing. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45807356/ns/sports-nfl </P>

The one thing that negates a lot of this though is that we were terrible at the start of the season (when most of the injuries occured) but we were some how really really good at the end of the season.</P>

And there were only a small handful of personnel differences between the beginning and the end. </P>

dezzzR

06-20-2012, 05:27 PM

Further proof our best team was 2008. We had a great shot at repeating, no pun intended.</p>

Well if the removal of one WR, who was having a sub par season, can cause your team to fall apart, then maybe the team wasn't as good as we all thought.</p>

Way to much emphasis focused on 1 player in the passing game. Giants didnt make that mistake when they rebuilt it. They almost had a complete reinvention of the identity of the team on offense. Pretty impressive how they won being a beastly running team in 2008 only to win with an explosive passing offense 4 years later</p>

Actually my point was that everyone was blaming the Plaxico shooting as the reason we fell apart. We had so very good offensive games when he was out. He played one play at Zona then got hurt and we scored a boatload of points. He was suspended for the Seattle game and we put up 40+.</p>

<u>What really happened was that our team wasn't as good as we thought.</u> Losing Osi in the pre season along with Strahan's retirement put a hole in our DE rotation. And the offense was exposed as well as the season progressed. Teams just figured out how to beat us because we were beatable.</p>

Not scoring a TD at home in the playoffs showed that we really weren't that good. We won one game in our last 6.</p>Oh stop. That 08 team was great. And if I remember correctly it wasnt just about Plax. Pierce and a few other Giants were also involved and being investigated by the Police during that period. One playoff loss doesnt mean the team was bad.

Neverend

06-20-2012, 05:40 PM

Further proof our best team was 2008. We had a great shot at repeating, no pun intended.</P>

Well if the removal of one WR, who was having a sub par season, can cause your team to fall apart, then maybe the team wasn't as good as we all thought.</P>

Way to much emphasis focused on 1 player in the passing game. Giants didnt make that mistake when they rebuilt it. They almost had a complete reinvention of the identity of the team on offense. Pretty impressive how they won being a beastly running team in 2008 only to win with an explosive passing offense 4 years later</P>

Actually my point was that everyone was blaming the Plaxico shooting as the reason we fell apart.* We had so very good offensive games when he was out.* He played one play at Zona then got hurt and we scored a boatload of points.* He was suspended for the Seattle game and we put up 40+.</P>

What really happened was that our team wasn't as good as we thought.* Losing Osi in the pre season along with Strahan's retirement put a hole in our DE rotation.* And the offense was exposed as well as the season progressed.* Teams just figured out how to beat us because we were beatable.</P>

Not scoring a TD at home in the playoffs showed that we really weren't that good.* We won one game in our last 6.</P>

I agree. Plax gets too much blame.

We just lost to the only nfl team IN THE ENTIRE LEAGUE that the giants dont match up well with: the eagles

Eli also got into a little slump at the end of the year

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 05:53 PM

GUMBY- so u do have reading comprehension issues? how cant u understand this : lmfao. whatever u say....seems to me ur getting defensive. im laughing my *** off how "certain" posters would blame eli for the defenses shortcomings ex. "field position" "not burning enough clock" "burning too much clock"...u can pretend like it didnt happen...it did, and its *** hilarious. so im not defensive at all, in fact i thank you. you provided me with some epic laughs. u have comprehension issues huh? the defensive scheme was complicated to our backups to the backups. they didnt and dont get first team reps, in fact, they are often used as scout team defenses, or are given little attention to in situations a starter would see. the players, pf, and tc were vocal about simplifying things for the players who hadnt been involved in the defense as long as others....injuries def. contributes to that. but i honestly could give 2 *** what u think, im merely stating that those who overlook the injuries and go "so???so what about injuries?" are wrong, and its not my opinion but that of TC, PF, and the players... something tells me in a season or two, i'll be able to look back on ur "i have zero confidence in PF" and the "so what? injuries? who cares?" and have a nice little laugh like so many of ur other thoughts again tho, nice how u overlook the key info in all this. THE TWO OTHER TEAMS TO HAVE SIMILAR INJURY SITUATIONS TO STARTERS AND KEY DEPTH WAS THE WINLESS LIONS AND A *** BILLS TEAM...nah, injuries dont play a factor in it at all... and the defensive rankings are skewed bc of that brutal stretch of opponents. i dont think the d allowed more than 21 pts until week 9...week 14 on they were lights out...the d isnt as bad as u make it out to be. as usual, ur opinion is skewed bc u base ur opinion solely on stats, and irrelevant stats at that most of the time. ___________________________________ if ur unable to understand that post theres no more reason for us to continue on...honestly theres not a reason too anyways. but if u cant comprehend that then theres no need to respond to me.</P>

I honestly don't have the time to try and decipher what you just wrote.* It's far too fragmented.* Try reading what I'm writing instead of reacting.*</P>

1)* No one is saying that Eli <U>himself </U>wasn't never blamed for the defense giving up points etc.* I'm agreeing with you.* <U>It did happen</U>.* What I'm saying is that it was from obvious trolls like CantBlameShockeyNow.* I never said any such crazy things.*** What I did say however is that, "The offense did the defense no favors by turning it over X times".* Now if you can't tell the difference between the former and the latter, i can't help you there.</P>

2)* Look back on previous posts.* We were all talking about <U>injury</U>.* Your first response to me was about <U>injury</U>.* Then for whatever reason you started talking about <U>defensive scheme and philosophy</U> out of left field.* How do you expect anyone to decipher your thought process?</P>

3)* If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that the difference between the start and end of the season wasn't all that large personnel wise. <U>Read</U></P>

4)* I have 0 confidence in Fewell.* What's so funny?* I made no judgement.* I never said he was a bad coordinator.* Just based on his past track record, I don't have faith in him going into next season.</P>

5)* Only a person with blue blinders on would tell you that our defense wasn't awful the majority of the regular season.** And using only 6 games as a basis for your decision is near sighted.</P>

1-ok so obviously you got defensive about eli, i was talking with another poster having a pleasant convo, which u then involved urself and then told me not to get defensive about eli...lol i havent from the start, that whole point is irrelevant anyways yet u keep bringing it up lol

we didnt give up around 21 pts defensively until week 9 u realize that right? anyone in the league will tell u "keep them under 21 we should win" then week 14 we went on a 6 game streak playing awesome.
we had murderers row on our schedule, it was brutal.

dc-gave up 21 defensively
stl-under 21
philly-under 21 i believe
miami-under 21
buffalo-i believe this coulda been more than 21 pts but right at it
az-another one right at 21 pts iirc
sf-gave up 28 iirc
ne-held under 21 iirc

our d wasnt awful up until week 9. it wasnt great, but it was what was generally acceptable bc of injuries. murderes row came, and we got lit up by NO GB etc...then week 14, d got healthy and played better than all season.

ur acting like our d was putrid all year, which is incorrect. and its something a few do over and over; misinterpret stats that are often irrelevant...

and there is no reason to continue, if u couldnt read my post than itd be like an english person speaking to a moronic 4 yr old chineese kid

miked1958

06-20-2012, 05:57 PM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

Got a gut feeling they will be a whole lot better this season.. And to me rankings don't mean a whole lot when in 3 of those yrs we won two titles and the other yr were deprived of one due to someone shooting himself

Drez

06-20-2012, 05:57 PM

AGL is a great argument settler, because it takes conversations past the “who cares about your whole linebacker corps, we lost our punt returner” stage.

I think there is one team that can actually make a legitimate use of that argument that I left... The Niners in the NFCCG, seeing as their back-up punt returner made several significant errors including the one that ultimately lost them the game, lol.

Thanks for posting that article again, too, Red. We were devastated with injuries last year, and if that isn't proof of why we played so poorly in stretches I don't know what is.

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 05:58 PM

The Sacking Wounded

Every team must deal with injuries, but few teams in history have had to deal with the number of injuries the Giants suffered on defense this year.
At Football Outsiders, we use a metric called Adjusted Games Lost (AGL) to determine how severe a team’s injury situation has been. AGL separates starters and key reserves from subs, so an injury to Umenyiora or another starter gets more weight than one to some seldom-used backup.

It also accounts for weeks when a player is listed as “questionable” or “probable” but still takes the field, so when someone like Tuck shakes off a toe injury and takes the field in a limited role, it counts as a partial injury.

AGL is a great argument settler, because it takes conversations past the “who cares about your whole linebacker corps, we lost our punt returner” stage.

The Giants are on pace to finish the season with the third-highest defensive AGL of the last decade, behind only the 2008 Lions (who went 0-16) and the 2009 Bills (who went 6-10 and got their coach fired). Through Week 14, they lost the equivalent of 58.9 games by starters to injuries. That means the Giants go into the average game missing four defensive starters and key reserves.

They have entered some games in far worse shape. Cornerback Corey Webster and safety Antrel Rolle are the only defenders to start all 15 games. The Giants lost top cornerback Terrell Thomas to an ACL injury in the middle of training camp. The mix-and-match job at linebacker has forced special teams ace Chase Blackburn to start a handful of games, and undrafted rookie Mark Herzlich climbed all the way to the starting middle linebacker job before suffering an injury of his own.

The front four has been hit as hard as any other unit. Rookie tackle Marvin Austin was lost in training camp. Tuck and Umenyiora have only taken a handful of snaps together. The front four has been able to maintain its high standard of play because Perry Fewell has found creative ways to use his best players, creating confusion and applying pass pressure without resorting to rampant blitzing.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45807356/ns/sports-nfl/

THANK YOU REDEYE...ME AND DREZ HAVE BEEN REPEATING THIS OVER AND OVER...

hopefully it sinks in for a few of these guys

gumby742

06-20-2012, 06:02 PM

GUMBY- so u do have reading comprehension issues? how cant u understand this : lmfao. whatever u say....seems to me ur getting defensive. im laughing my *** off how "certain" posters would blame eli for the defenses shortcomings ex. "field position" "not burning enough clock" "burning too much clock"...u can pretend like it didnt happen...it did, and its *** hilarious. so im not defensive at all, in fact i thank you. you provided me with some epic laughs. u have comprehension issues huh? the defensive scheme was complicated to our backups to the backups. they didnt and dont get first team reps, in fact, they are often used as scout team defenses, or are given little attention to in situations a starter would see. the players, pf, and tc were vocal about simplifying things for the players who hadnt been involved in the defense as long as others....injuries def. contributes to that. but i honestly could give 2 *** what u think, im merely stating that those who overlook the injuries and go "so???so what about injuries?" are wrong, and its not my opinion but that of TC, PF, and the players... something tells me in a season or two, i'll be able to look back on ur "i have zero confidence in PF" and the "so what? injuries? who cares?" and have a nice little laugh like so many of ur other thoughts again tho, nice how u overlook the key info in all this. THE TWO OTHER TEAMS TO HAVE SIMILAR INJURY SITUATIONS TO STARTERS AND KEY DEPTH WAS THE WINLESS LIONS AND A *** BILLS TEAM...nah, injuries dont play a factor in it at all... and the defensive rankings are skewed bc of that brutal stretch of opponents. i dont think the d allowed more than 21 pts until week 9...week 14 on they were lights out...the d isnt as bad as u make it out to be. as usual, ur opinion is skewed bc u base ur opinion solely on stats, and irrelevant stats at that most of the time. ___________________________________ if ur unable to understand that post theres no more reason for us to continue on...honestly theres not a reason too anyways. but if u cant comprehend that then theres no need to respond to me.</P>

I honestly don't have the time to try and decipher what you just wrote. It's far too fragmented. Try reading what I'm writing instead of reacting.</P>

1) No one is saying that Eli <U>himself </U>wasn't never blamed for the defense giving up points etc. I'm agreeing with you. <U>It did happen</U>. What I'm saying is that it was from obvious trolls like CantBlameShockeyNow. I never said any such crazy things. What I did say however is that, "The offense did the defense no favors by turning it over X times". Now if you can't tell the difference between the former and the latter, i can't help you there.</P>

2) Look back on previous posts. We were all talking about <U>injury</U>. Your first response to me was about <U>injury</U>. Then for whatever reason you started talking about <U>defensive scheme and philosophy</U> out of left field. How do you expect anyone to decipher your thought process?</P>

3) If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that the difference between the start and end of the season wasn't all that large personnel wise. <U>Read</U></P>

4) I have 0 confidence in Fewell. What's so funny? I made no judgement. I never said he was a bad coordinator. Just based on his past track record, I don't have faith in him going into next season.</P>

5) Only a person with blue blinders on would tell you that our defense wasn't awful the majority of the regular season. And using only 6 games as a basis for your decision is near sighted.</P>

1-ok so obviously you got defensive about eli, i was talking with another poster having a pleasant convo, which u then involved urself and then told me not to get defensive about eli...lol i havent from the start, that whole point is irrelevant anyways yet u keep bringing it up lol we didnt give up around 21 pts defensively until week 9 u realize that right? anyone in the league will tell u "keep them under 21 we should win" then week 14 we went on a 6 game streak playing awesome. we had murderers row on our schedule, it was brutal. dc-gave up 21 defensively stl-under 21 philly-under 21 i believe miami-under 21 buffalo-i believe this coulda been more than 21 pts but right at it az-another one right at 21 pts iirc sf-gave up 28 iirc ne-held under 21 iirc our d wasnt awful up until week 9. it wasnt great, but it was what was generally acceptable bc of injuries. murderes row came, and we got lit up by NO GB etc...then week 14, d got healthy and played better than all season. ur acting like our d was putrid all year, which is incorrect. and its something a few do over and over; misinterpret stats that are often irrelevant... and there is no reason to continue, if u couldnt read my post than itd be like an english person speaking to a moronic 4 yr old chineese kid</P>

I'm not asian, but there's no reason to bring race into a thread. It's uncalled for.</P>

Then it's a matter of opinion. But I'm pretty sure most Giant fans would tell you that our defense was putrid outside of that post season/end reg seasonrun.</P>

gumby742

06-20-2012, 06:03 PM

The Sacking Wounded Every team must deal with injuries, but few teams in history have had to deal with the number of injuries the Giants suffered on defense this year. At Football Outsiders, we use a metric called Adjusted Games Lost (AGL) to determine how severe a team’s injury situation has been. AGL separates starters and key reserves from subs, so an injury to Umenyiora or another starter gets more weight than one to some seldom-used backup. It also accounts for weeks when a player is listed as “questionable” or “probable” but still takes the field, so when someone like Tuck shakes off a toe injury and takes the field in a limited role, it counts as a partial injury. AGL is a great argument settler, because it takes conversations past the “who cares about your whole linebacker corps, we lost our punt returner” stage. The Giants are on pace to finish the season with the third-highest defensive AGL of the last decade, behind only the 2008 Lions (who went 0-16) and the 2009 Bills (who went 6-10 and got their coach fired). Through Week 14, they lost the equivalent of 58.9 games by starters to injuries. That means the Giants go into the average game missing four defensive starters and key reserves. They have entered some games in far worse shape. Cornerback Corey Webster and safety Antrel Rolle are the only defenders to start all 15 games. The Giants lost top cornerback Terrell Thomas to an ACL injury in the middle of training camp. The mix-and-match job at linebacker has forced special teams ace Chase Blackburn to start a handful of games, and undrafted rookie Mark Herzlich climbed all the way to the starting middle linebacker job before suffering an injury of his own. The front four has been hit as hard as any other unit. Rookie tackle Marvin Austin was lost in training camp. Tuck and Umenyiora have only taken a handful of snaps together. The front four has been able to maintain its high standard of play because Perry Fewell has found creative ways to use his best players, creating confusion and applying pass pressure without resorting to rampant blitzing. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45807356/ns/sports-nfl </P>

The one thing that negates a lot of this though is that we were terrible at the start of the season (when most of the injuries occured) but we were some how really really good at the end of the season.</P>

And there were only a small handful of personnel differences between the beginning and the end. </P>

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 06:05 PM

GUMBY- so u do have reading comprehension issues? how cant u understand this : lmfao. whatever u say....seems to me ur getting defensive. im laughing my *** off how "certain" posters would blame eli for the defenses shortcomings ex. "field position" "not burning enough clock" "burning too much clock"...u can pretend like it didnt happen...it did, and its *** hilarious. so im not defensive at all, in fact i thank you. you provided me with some epic laughs. u have comprehension issues huh? the defensive scheme was complicated to our backups to the backups. they didnt and dont get first team reps, in fact, they are often used as scout team defenses, or are given little attention to in situations a starter would see. the players, pf, and tc were vocal about simplifying things for the players who hadnt been involved in the defense as long as others....injuries def. contributes to that. but i honestly could give 2 *** what u think, im merely stating that those who overlook the injuries and go "so???so what about injuries?" are wrong, and its not my opinion but that of TC, PF, and the players... something tells me in a season or two, i'll be able to look back on ur "i have zero confidence in PF" and the "so what? injuries? who cares?" and have a nice little laugh like so many of ur other thoughts again tho, nice how u overlook the key info in all this. THE TWO OTHER TEAMS TO HAVE SIMILAR INJURY SITUATIONS TO STARTERS AND KEY DEPTH WAS THE WINLESS LIONS AND A *** BILLS TEAM...nah, injuries dont play a factor in it at all... and the defensive rankings are skewed bc of that brutal stretch of opponents. i dont think the d allowed more than 21 pts until week 9...week 14 on they were lights out...the d isnt as bad as u make it out to be. as usual, ur opinion is skewed bc u base ur opinion solely on stats, and irrelevant stats at that most of the time. ___________________________________ if ur unable to understand that post theres no more reason for us to continue on...honestly theres not a reason too anyways. but if u cant comprehend that then theres no need to respond to me.</P>

I honestly don't have the time to try and decipher what you just wrote.* It's far too fragmented.* Try reading what I'm writing instead of reacting.*</P>

1)* No one is saying that Eli <U>himself </U>wasn't never blamed for the defense giving up points etc.* I'm agreeing with you.* <U>It did happen</U>.* What I'm saying is that it was from obvious trolls like CantBlameShockeyNow.* I never said any such crazy things.*** What I did say however is that, "The offense did the defense no favors by turning it over X times".* Now if you can't tell the difference between the former and the latter, i can't help you there.</P>

2)* Look back on previous posts.* We were all talking about <U>injury</U>.* Your first response to me was about <U>injury</U>.* Then for whatever reason you started talking about <U>defensive scheme and philosophy</U> out of left field.* How do you expect anyone to decipher your thought process?</P>

3)* If you actually read what I wrote, you'll see that the difference between the start and end of the season wasn't all that large personnel wise. <U>Read</U></P>

4)* I have 0 confidence in Fewell.* What's so funny?* I made no judgement.* I never said he was a bad coordinator.* Just based on his past track record, I don't have faith in him going into next season.</P>

5)* Only a person with blue blinders on would tell you that our defense wasn't awful the majority of the regular season.** And using only 6 games as a basis for your decision is near sighted.</P>

1-ok so obviously you got defensive about eli, i was talking with another poster having a pleasant convo, which u then involved urself and then told me not to get defensive about eli...lol i havent from the start, that whole point is irrelevant anyways yet u keep bringing it up lol we didnt give up around 21 pts defensively until week 9 u realize that right? anyone in the league will tell u "keep them under 21 we should win" then week 14 we went on a 6 game streak playing awesome. we had murderers row on our schedule, it was brutal. dc-gave up 21 defensively stl-under 21 philly-under 21 i believe miami-under 21 buffalo-i believe this coulda been more than 21 pts but right at it az-another one right at 21 pts iirc sf-gave up 28 iirc ne-held under 21 iirc our d wasnt awful up until week 9. it wasnt great, but it was what was generally acceptable bc of injuries. murderes row came, and we got lit up by NO GB etc...then week 14, d got healthy and played better than all season. ur acting like our d was putrid all year, which is incorrect. and its something a few do over and over; misinterpret stats that are often irrelevant... and there is no reason to continue, if u couldnt read my post than itd be like an english person speaking to a moronic 4 yr old chineese kid</P>

I'm not asian, but there's no reason to bring race into a thread.* It's uncalled for.</P>

Then it's a matter of opinion.* But I'm pretty sure most Giant fans would tell you that our defense was putrid outside of that post season/end reg season*run.</P>

oh stop i was jusr using hyperbole. i dont mean that bc a person is any nationality it makes them dumb. but to make sure, for you, itd be like talking with a moronic 4 yr old martian...

how do u know i wasnt referring to myself as the moron anyways :)

Drez

06-20-2012, 06:06 PM

The Sacking Wounded Every team must deal with injuries, but few teams in history have had to deal with the number of injuries the Giants suffered on defense this year. At Football Outsiders, we use a metric called Adjusted Games Lost (AGL) to determine how severe a team’s injury situation has been. AGL separates starters and key reserves from subs, so an injury to Umenyiora or another starter gets more weight than one to some seldom-used backup. It also accounts for weeks when a player is listed as “questionable” or “probable” but still takes the field, so when someone like Tuck shakes off a toe injury and takes the field in a limited role, it counts as a partial injury. AGL is a great argument settler, because it takes conversations past the “who cares about your whole linebacker corps, we lost our punt returner” stage. The Giants are on pace to finish the season with the third-highest defensive AGL of the last decade, behind only the 2008 Lions (who went 0-16) and the 2009 Bills (who went 6-10 and got their coach fired). Through Week 14, they lost the equivalent of 58.9 games by starters to injuries. That means the Giants go into the average game missing four defensive starters and key reserves. They have entered some games in far worse shape. Cornerback Corey Webster and safety Antrel Rolle are the only defenders to start all 15 games. The Giants lost top cornerback Terrell Thomas to an ACL injury in the middle of training camp. The mix-and-match job at linebacker has forced special teams ace Chase Blackburn to start a handful of games, and undrafted rookie Mark Herzlich climbed all the way to the starting middle linebacker job before suffering an injury of his own. The front four has been hit as hard as any other unit. Rookie tackle Marvin Austin was lost in training camp. Tuck and Umenyiora have only taken a handful of snaps together. The front four has been able to maintain its high standard of play because Perry Fewell has found creative ways to use his best players, creating confusion and applying pass pressure without resorting to rampant blitzing. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45807356/ns/sports-nfl </p>

The one thing that negates a lot of this though is that we were terrible at the start of the season (when most of the injuries occured) but we were some how really really good at the end of the season.</p>

And there were only a small handful of personnel differences between the beginning and the end. </p>
So, just because a back up is forced into a starting role early in the season it means he should play as well as the starter he's replacing?

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 06:12 PM

The Sacking Wounded Every team must deal with injuries, but few teams in history have had to deal with the number of injuries the Giants suffered on defense this year. At Football Outsiders, we use a metric called Adjusted Games Lost (AGL) to determine how severe a team’s injury situation has been. AGL separates starters and key reserves from subs, so an injury to Umenyiora or another starter gets more weight than one to some seldom-used backup. It also accounts for weeks when a player is listed as “questionable” or “probable” but still takes the field, so when someone like Tuck shakes off a toe injury and takes the field in a limited role, it counts as a partial injury. AGL is a great argument settler, because it takes conversations past the “who cares about your whole linebacker corps, we lost our punt returner” stage. The Giants are on pace to finish the season with the third-highest defensive AGL of the last decade, behind only the 2008 Lions (who went 0-16) and the 2009 Bills (who went 6-10 and got their coach fired). Through Week 14, they lost the equivalent of 58.9 games by starters to injuries. That means the Giants go into the average game missing four defensive starters and key reserves. They have entered some games in far worse shape. Cornerback Corey Webster and safety Antrel Rolle are the only defenders to start all 15 games. The Giants lost top cornerback Terrell Thomas to an ACL injury in the middle of training camp. The mix-and-match job at linebacker has forced special teams ace Chase Blackburn to start a handful of games, and undrafted rookie Mark Herzlich climbed all the way to the starting middle linebacker job before suffering an injury of his own. The front four has been hit as hard as any other unit. Rookie tackle Marvin Austin was lost in training camp. Tuck and Umenyiora have only taken a handful of snaps together. The front four has been able to maintain its high standard of play because Perry Fewell has found creative ways to use his best players, creating confusion and applying pass pressure without resorting to rampant blitzing. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45807356/ns/sports-nfl </p>

The one thing that negates a lot of this though is that we were terrible at the start of the season (when most of the injuries occured) but we were some how really really good at the end of the season.</p>

And there were only a small handful of personnel differences between the beginning and the end. </p>
So, just because a back up is forced into a starting role early in the season it means he should play as well as the starter he's replacing?

drez, if that article wont get him to at least budge on his stance, dont even bother. its a lost cause...

gumby742

06-20-2012, 06:12 PM

The Sacking Wounded Every team must deal with injuries, but few teams in history have had to deal with the number of injuries the Giants suffered on defense this year. At Football Outsiders, we use a metric called Adjusted Games Lost (AGL) to determine how severe a team’s injury situation has been. AGL separates starters and key reserves from subs, so an injury to Umenyiora or another starter gets more weight than one to some seldom-used backup. It also accounts for weeks when a player is listed as “questionable” or “probable” but still takes the field, so when someone like Tuck shakes off a toe injury and takes the field in a limited role, it counts as a partial injury. AGL is a great argument settler, because it takes conversations past the “who cares about your whole linebacker corps, we lost our punt returner” stage. The Giants are on pace to finish the season with the third-highest defensive AGL of the last decade, behind only the 2008 Lions (who went 0-16) and the 2009 Bills (who went 6-10 and got their coach fired). Through Week 14, they lost the equivalent of 58.9 games by starters to injuries. That means the Giants go into the average game missing four defensive starters and key reserves. They have entered some games in far worse shape. Cornerback Corey Webster and safety Antrel Rolle are the only defenders to start all 15 games. The Giants lost top cornerback Terrell Thomas to an ACL injury in the middle of training camp. The mix-and-match job at linebacker has forced special teams ace Chase Blackburn to start a handful of games, and undrafted rookie Mark Herzlich climbed all the way to the starting middle linebacker job before suffering an injury of his own. The front four has been hit as hard as any other unit. Rookie tackle Marvin Austin was lost in training camp. Tuck and Umenyiora have only taken a handful of snaps together. The front four has been able to maintain its high standard of play because Perry Fewell has found creative ways to use his best players, creating confusion and applying pass pressure without resorting to rampant blitzing. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45807356/ns/sports-nfl </P>

The one thing that negates a lot of this though is that we were terrible at the start of the season (when most of the injuries occured) but we were some how really really good at the end of the season.</P>

And there were only a small handful of personnel differences between the beginning and the end. </P>

So, just because a back up is forced into a starting role early in the season it means he should play as well as the starter he's replacing?
</P>

Not sure I follow. Are you saying that it took time (most of the reg. season) for the backups to learn the system/get into the flow of things? And that was the reason for our struggles for most the season?</P>

Regardless, Thomas was the only starter we lost before the beginning of the season. And Ross is a veteran and not a rookie still learning the ropes.</P>

gumby742

06-20-2012, 06:15 PM

The Sacking Wounded Every team must deal with injuries, but few teams in history have had to deal with the number of injuries the Giants suffered on defense this year. At Football Outsiders, we use a metric called Adjusted Games Lost (AGL) to determine how severe a team’s injury situation has been. AGL separates starters and key reserves from subs, so an injury to Umenyiora or another starter gets more weight than one to some seldom-used backup. It also accounts for weeks when a player is listed as “questionable” or “probable” but still takes the field, so when someone like Tuck shakes off a toe injury and takes the field in a limited role, it counts as a partial injury. AGL is a great argument settler, because it takes conversations past the “who cares about your whole linebacker corps, we lost our punt returner” stage. The Giants are on pace to finish the season with the third-highest defensive AGL of the last decade, behind only the 2008 Lions (who went 0-16) and the 2009 Bills (who went 6-10 and got their coach fired). Through Week 14, they lost the equivalent of 58.9 games by starters to injuries. That means the Giants go into the average game missing four defensive starters and key reserves. They have entered some games in far worse shape. Cornerback Corey Webster and safety Antrel Rolle are the only defenders to start all 15 games. The Giants lost top cornerback Terrell Thomas to an ACL injury in the middle of training camp. The mix-and-match job at linebacker has forced special teams ace Chase Blackburn to start a handful of games, and undrafted rookie Mark Herzlich climbed all the way to the starting middle linebacker job before suffering an injury of his own. The front four has been hit as hard as any other unit. Rookie tackle Marvin Austin was lost in training camp. Tuck and Umenyiora have only taken a handful of snaps together. The front four has been able to maintain its high standard of play because Perry Fewell has found creative ways to use his best players, creating confusion and applying pass pressure without resorting to rampant blitzing. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45807356/ns/sports-nfl </P>

The one thing that negates a lot of this though is that we were terrible at the start of the season (when most of the injuries occured) but we were some how really really good at the end of the season.</P>

And there were only a small handful of personnel differences between the beginning and the end. </P>

So, just because a back up is forced into a starting role early in the season it means he should play as well as the starter he's replacing?
drez, if that article wont get him to at least budge on his stance, dont even bother. its a lost cause...</P>

Drez, brought up a very good point.This is a discussion not an argument.</P>

slipknottin

06-20-2012, 06:16 PM

going by footballoutsiders numbers, they are horribly inconsistent.

2011 - 18th
2010 - 31st
2009 - 27th
2008 - 31st
2007 - 18th

So week to week the same defense doesnt show up. I think most of us can see that happening.

Just look at the last superbowl for an example, giants started great on defense, then got torn up for two long scoring drives, then showed up again.

Its a combination of a lot of issues, inconsistent pass rush, inconsistent secondary plays, and they seemingly always have more blown assignments than a top defense should.

Neither TD to Vernon Davis should have happened if players were doing what they were supposed to be doing.

Drez

06-20-2012, 06:18 PM

The Sacking Wounded Every team must deal with injuries, but few teams in history have had to deal with the number of injuries the Giants suffered on defense this year. At Football Outsiders, we use a metric called Adjusted Games Lost (AGL) to determine how severe a team’s injury situation has been. AGL separates starters and key reserves from subs, so an injury to Umenyiora or another starter gets more weight than one to some seldom-used backup. It also accounts for weeks when a player is listed as “questionable” or “probable” but still takes the field, so when someone like Tuck shakes off a toe injury and takes the field in a limited role, it counts as a partial injury. AGL is a great argument settler, because it takes conversations past the “who cares about your whole linebacker corps, we lost our punt returner” stage. The Giants are on pace to finish the season with the third-highest defensive AGL of the last decade, behind only the 2008 Lions (who went 0-16) and the 2009 Bills (who went 6-10 and got their coach fired). Through Week 14, they lost the equivalent of 58.9 games by starters to injuries. That means the Giants go into the average game missing four defensive starters and key reserves. They have entered some games in far worse shape. Cornerback Corey Webster and safety Antrel Rolle are the only defenders to start all 15 games. The Giants lost top cornerback Terrell Thomas to an ACL injury in the middle of training camp. The mix-and-match job at linebacker has forced special teams ace Chase Blackburn to start a handful of games, and undrafted rookie Mark Herzlich climbed all the way to the starting middle linebacker job before suffering an injury of his own. The front four has been hit as hard as any other unit. Rookie tackle Marvin Austin was lost in training camp. Tuck and Umenyiora have only taken a handful of snaps together. The front four has been able to maintain its high standard of play because Perry Fewell has found creative ways to use his best players, creating confusion and applying pass pressure without resorting to rampant blitzing. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45807356/ns/sports-nfl </p>

The one thing that negates a lot of this though is that we were terrible at the start of the season (when most of the injuries occured) but we were some how really really good at the end of the season.</p>

And there were only a small handful of personnel differences between the beginning and the end. </p>

So, just because a back up is forced into a starting role early in the season it means he should play as well as the starter he's replacing?
</p>

Not sure I follow. Are you saying that it took time (most of the reg. season) for the backups to learn the system/get into the flow of things? And that was the reason for our struggles for most the season?</p>

Regardless, Thomas was the only starter we lost before the beginning of the season. And Ross is a veteran and not a rookie still learning the ropes.</p>
We lost Goff, too, which was a hole we tried filling with multiple players all year. Osi was hurt a lot. Tuck was hurt a lot. We lost Boley for a couple games, and he was limited in the first couple back. We lost several of our nickle corners throughout the season, such as Tryon, which forced our starting safety into nickle CB duties. And regardless of Ross not being a rookie, that doesn't mean he's as good as TT. Think about it this way. Ross was competing for the 3rd CB spot in camp and looking like he was losing that battle...

Toadofsteel

06-20-2012, 06:34 PM

The big thing I don't like about PF is that he likes to manage his defense from the back end first. He's concerned with coverage packages over everything else and only with the nascar package to bring 4-man pressure as if it was 7-man pressure did we do anything to opposing QB's. Spags was blitzing all day, changing up who was blitzing and who was dropping into coverage, and he destroyed the Patriots' "fortress of solitude" offensive line with it. The Giants defense is built from the front end first, and we need a DC that can manage it from that end. PF is NOT that person. Maybe he'd do a spectacular job on another defense but he's just not a good fit with the Giants. I'd still take him over Sheridan though...</P>

I still think Spags is one of the best (if not the best) dc we EVER had (bold statement I know). We all saw how Tim Lewis and Bill Sheridan were before and after him with a bunch of core players being the same.*He was the perfect combination of being motivational,*consistant, disiplined*and being a players coach. They all loved the guy. And after the first few games he was a DC where we gave up 80 points in 2 games, he was outstanding. Those 2008 stats show you how good he was cause that was without Strahan, Kiwi, JPP or Canty manning the DLine, and with a bunch of injuries. His system was one of the best we ever had. I would welcome him back here with open arms. </P>

Fewell is not as consistant with the pressure, which costs us a lot. Sending 3 at Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers on a 3rd and long should not be done, yet we did it over and over, and failed 90% of the time to stop it. He is a solid DC, but isnt anywhere near Spags.</P>

I'd still give it a tie between Belicheck and Landry for best DC ever... but since the mid-90s, Spags has definitely been the best we've had for our system. PF may be a better DC overall, but I still maintain he's not the best for the defense we like to run.

And, honestly, that winning in the trenches is how you defeat legendary QB's. You could just tell that Brady was more in fear of #92 barreling down on him in XLII that it prevented him from executing the way he wants to. I also firmly believe that it was the pressure we were exerting in the playoffs on the QB that led to "butterfingers" passes. Yeah the public blames the receivers, but it can't just be that a receiving unit just magically "falters" vs the Giants, TWICE (in the div round and the SB)... it had to be the pressure exerted on the QB. Even if there is no sack or turnover, the timing disruption can be brutal.

Of course, signing such talent for the line leaves you with less cap money to spend on the rest of your defense. So the secondary isn't that great. Which is why it's important to win up front. Trying to win from the back will just get you killed. I really don't like that about PF and our system. I'm willing to give him plenty of chance since he did win a SB, going through Rodgers and Brady in the process, but I really want to see more 4- and 5-man pressures.

gumby742

06-20-2012, 09:08 PM

The Sacking Wounded Every team must deal with injuries, but few teams in history have had to deal with the number of injuries the Giants suffered on defense this year. At Football Outsiders, we use a metric called Adjusted Games Lost (AGL) to determine how severe a team’s injury situation has been. AGL separates starters and key reserves from subs, so an injury to Umenyiora or another starter gets more weight than one to some seldom-used backup. It also accounts for weeks when a player is listed as “questionable” or “probable” but still takes the field, so when someone like Tuck shakes off a toe injury and takes the field in a limited role, it counts as a partial injury. AGL is a great argument settler, because it takes conversations past the “who cares about your whole linebacker corps, we lost our punt returner” stage. The Giants are on pace to finish the season with the third-highest defensive AGL of the last decade, behind only the 2008 Lions (who went 0-16) and the 2009 Bills (who went 6-10 and got their coach fired). Through Week 14, they lost the equivalent of 58.9 games by starters to injuries. That means the Giants go into the average game missing four defensive starters and key reserves. They have entered some games in far worse shape. Cornerback Corey Webster and safety Antrel Rolle are the only defenders to start all 15 games. The Giants lost top cornerback Terrell Thomas to an ACL injury in the middle of training camp. The mix-and-match job at linebacker has forced special teams ace Chase Blackburn to start a handful of games, and undrafted rookie Mark Herzlich climbed all the way to the starting middle linebacker job before suffering an injury of his own. The front four has been hit as hard as any other unit. Rookie tackle Marvin Austin was lost in training camp. Tuck and Umenyiora have only taken a handful of snaps together. The front four has been able to maintain its high standard of play because Perry Fewell has found creative ways to use his best players, creating confusion and applying pass pressure without resorting to rampant blitzing. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45807356/ns/sports-nfl </p>

The one thing that negates a lot of this though is that we were terrible at the start of the season (when most of the injuries occured) but we were some how really really good at the end of the season.</p>

And there were only a small handful of personnel differences between the beginning and the end. </p>

So, just because a back up is forced into a starting role early in the season it means he should play as well as the starter he's replacing?
</p>

Not sure I follow.* Are you saying that it took time (most of the reg. season) for the backups to learn the system/get into the flow of things?* And that was the reason for our struggles for most the season?</p>

Regardless, Thomas was the only starter we lost before the beginning of the season.* And Ross is a veteran and not a rookie still learning the ropes.</p>
We lost Goff, too, which was a hole we tried filling with multiple players all year. Osi was hurt a lot. Tuck was hurt a lot. We lost Boley for a couple games, and he was limited in the first couple back. We lost several of our nickle corners throughout the season, such as Tryon, which forced our starting safety into nickle CB duties. And regardless of Ross not being a rookie, that doesn't mean he's as good as TT. Think about it this way. Ross was competing for the 3rd CB spot in camp and looking like he was losing that battle...

The mid season injuries, don't account for much in my book, because like I was saying before, we were ****e when teh season started, but were awesome when it ended - when everyone was banged up.

But, i forgot about Goff. And you make a valid case regarding rookies needing to step up and learn the position. Now that I think about it, the fact that when Chase rejoined the team and our defense all of a sudden stepped up, it also supports your case. After all, he has the experience already and knows the system.

Well played sir.

Now the question is, does that warrant a last to best differential in performance?

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 09:12 PM

The Sacking Wounded Every team must deal with injuries, but few teams in history have had to deal with the number of injuries the Giants suffered on defense this year. At Football Outsiders, we use a metric called Adjusted Games Lost (AGL) to determine how severe a team’s injury situation has been. AGL separates starters and key reserves from subs, so an injury to Umenyiora or another starter gets more weight than one to some seldom-used backup. It also accounts for weeks when a player is listed as “questionable” or “probable” but still takes the field, so when someone like Tuck shakes off a toe injury and takes the field in a limited role, it counts as a partial injury. AGL is a great argument settler, because it takes conversations past the “who cares about your whole linebacker corps, we lost our punt returner” stage. The Giants are on pace to finish the season with the third-highest defensive AGL of the last decade, behind only the 2008 Lions (who went 0-16) and the 2009 Bills (who went 6-10 and got their coach fired). Through Week 14, they lost the equivalent of 58.9 games by starters to injuries. That means the Giants go into the average game missing four defensive starters and key reserves. They have entered some games in far worse shape. Cornerback Corey Webster and safety Antrel Rolle are the only defenders to start all 15 games. The Giants lost top cornerback Terrell Thomas to an ACL injury in the middle of training camp. The mix-and-match job at linebacker has forced special teams ace Chase Blackburn to start a handful of games, and undrafted rookie Mark Herzlich climbed all the way to the starting middle linebacker job before suffering an injury of his own. The front four has been hit as hard as any other unit. Rookie tackle Marvin Austin was lost in training camp. Tuck and Umenyiora have only taken a handful of snaps together. The front four has been able to maintain its high standard of play because Perry Fewell has found creative ways to use his best players, creating confusion and applying pass pressure without resorting to rampant blitzing. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45807356/ns/sports-nfl </p>

The one thing that negates a lot of this though is that we were terrible at the start of the season (when most of the injuries occured) but we were some how really really good at the end of the season.</p>

And there were only a small handful of personnel differences between the beginning and the end. </p>

So, just because a back up is forced into a starting role early in the season it means he should play as well as the starter he's replacing?
</p>

Not sure I follow.* Are you saying that it took time (most of the reg. season) for the backups to learn the system/get into the flow of things?* And that was the reason for our struggles for most the season?</p>

Regardless, Thomas was the only starter we lost before the beginning of the season.* And Ross is a veteran and not a rookie still learning the ropes.</p>
We lost Goff, too, which was a hole we tried filling with multiple players all year. Osi was hurt a lot. Tuck was hurt a lot. We lost Boley for a couple games, and he was limited in the first couple back. We lost several of our nickle corners throughout the season, such as Tryon, which forced our starting safety into nickle CB duties. And regardless of Ross not being a rookie, that doesn't mean he's as good as TT. Think about it this way. Ross was competing for the 3rd CB spot in camp and looking like he was losing that battle...

The mid season injuries, don't account for much in my book, because like I was saying before, we were ****e when teh season started, but were awesome when it ended - when everyone was banged up.

But, i forgot about Goff. And you make a valid case regarding rookies needing to step up and learn the position. Now that I think about it, the fact that when Chase rejoined the team and our defense all of a sudden stepped up, it also supports your case. After all, he has the experience already and knows the system.

Well played sir.

Now the question is, does that warrant a last to best differential in performance?

LOL, i've literally seen those exact words said to you repeatedly and i've even expressed much of that...and now it finally makes sense?

and whats with this worst to first or first to worst sentiment u've been saying? we haven't been the best d in years, nor the worst...?you of all people should know its a team sport and that the d isnt the only reason we're champs right, they played awesomely dont get me wrong, but we also had an offense producing at an excellent level as well. winning the SB doesnt make the d #1 overall all of a sudden...just like it doesnt make eli the #1 qb all of a sudden lmfao cmon be fair

Drez

06-20-2012, 09:18 PM

The Sacking Wounded Every team must deal with injuries, but few teams in history have had to deal with the number of injuries the Giants suffered on defense this year. At Football Outsiders, we use a metric called Adjusted Games Lost (AGL) to determine how severe a team’s injury situation has been. AGL separates starters and key reserves from subs, so an injury to Umenyiora or another starter gets more weight than one to some seldom-used backup. It also accounts for weeks when a player is listed as “questionable” or “probable” but still takes the field, so when someone like Tuck shakes off a toe injury and takes the field in a limited role, it counts as a partial injury. AGL is a great argument settler, because it takes conversations past the “who cares about your whole linebacker corps, we lost our punt returner” stage. The Giants are on pace to finish the season with the third-highest defensive AGL of the last decade, behind only the 2008 Lions (who went 0-16) and the 2009 Bills (who went 6-10 and got their coach fired). Through Week 14, they lost the equivalent of 58.9 games by starters to injuries. That means the Giants go into the average game missing four defensive starters and key reserves. They have entered some games in far worse shape. Cornerback Corey Webster and safety Antrel Rolle are the only defenders to start all 15 games. The Giants lost top cornerback Terrell Thomas to an ACL injury in the middle of training camp. The mix-and-match job at linebacker has forced special teams ace Chase Blackburn to start a handful of games, and undrafted rookie Mark Herzlich climbed all the way to the starting middle linebacker job before suffering an injury of his own. The front four has been hit as hard as any other unit. Rookie tackle Marvin Austin was lost in training camp. Tuck and Umenyiora have only taken a handful of snaps together. The front four has been able to maintain its high standard of play because Perry Fewell has found creative ways to use his best players, creating confusion and applying pass pressure without resorting to rampant blitzing. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45807356/ns/sports-nfl </p>

The one thing that negates a lot of this though is that we were terrible at the start of the season (when most of the injuries occured) but we were some how really really good at the end of the season.</p>

And there were only a small handful of personnel differences between the beginning and the end. </p>

So, just because a back up is forced into a starting role early in the season it means he should play as well as the starter he's replacing?
</p>

Not sure I follow. Are you saying that it took time (most of the reg. season) for the backups to learn the system/get into the flow of things? And that was the reason for our struggles for most the season?</p>

Regardless, Thomas was the only starter we lost before the beginning of the season. And Ross is a veteran and not a rookie still learning the ropes.</p>
We lost Goff, too, which was a hole we tried filling with multiple players all year. Osi was hurt a lot. Tuck was hurt a lot. We lost Boley for a couple games, and he was limited in the first couple back. We lost several of our nickle corners throughout the season, such as Tryon, which forced our starting safety into nickle CB duties. And regardless of Ross not being a rookie, that doesn't mean he's as good as TT. Think about it this way. Ross was competing for the 3rd CB spot in camp and looking like he was losing that battle...

The mid season injuries, don't account for much in my book, because like I was saying before, we were ****e when teh season started, but were awesome when it ended - when everyone was banged up.

But, i forgot about Goff. And you make a valid case regarding rookies needing to step up and learn the position. Now that I think about it, the fact that when Chase rejoined the team and our defense all of a sudden stepped up, it also supports your case. After all, he has the experience already and knows the system.

Well played sir.

Now the question is, does that warrant a last to best differential in performance?

It explains a very large part of it. It's not the whole story, but you can say it is one of the major uniting themes running through the season.

Drez

06-20-2012, 09:36 PM

LOL, i've literally seen those exact words said to you repeatedly and i've even expressed much of that...and now it finally makes sense?

and whats with this worst to first or first to worst sentiment u've been saying? we haven't been the best d in years, nor the worst...?you of all people should know its a team sport and that the d isnt the only reason we're champs right, they played awesomely dont get me wrong, but we also had an offense producing at an excellent level as well. winning the SB doesnt make the d #1 overall all of a sudden...just like it doesnt make eli the #1 qb all of a sudden lmfao cmon be fair

Well, our defense the last 6 weeks of the year would probably rate at the top, maybe not first, but close enough to warrant the expression.

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 09:58 PM

*

LOL, i've literally seen those exact words said to you repeatedly and i've even expressed much of that...and now it finally makes sense?

and whats with this worst to first or first to worst sentiment u've been saying? we haven't been the best d in years, nor the worst...?you of all people should know its a team sport and that the d isnt the only reason we're champs right, they played awesomely dont get me wrong, but we also had an offense producing at an excellent level as well. winning the SB doesnt make the d #1 overall all of a sudden...just like it doesnt make eli the #1 qb all of a sudden lmfao cmon be fair

Well, our defense the last 6 weeks of the year would probably rate at the top, maybe not first, but close enough to warrant the expression.

i dunno. we def kicked *** defensively dont get me wrong. and we prob ranked among the best in the nfl for those 6 games, but for the season we were neither worst nor the first...
and its more directed to him saying we were the worst from the start of the season when thats simply not true. i've explained that when we got to 6-2, we were holding teams to either under 21 pts for the majority, or right at or around 21 pts...
any coach in the league, and i've heard d coordinators say this, many of them repeatedly, "if u can hold the opposing offense to under 21 points, we should win."

it wasnt til thjat brutal stretch for NO, GB and that whole 4 or 5 weeks vs the best offenses in the league that our d rankings really slid.

if u take away that NO game, the GB game, the dallas game at dallas, basically that whole stretch, our d was playing pretty well, especially consicering all the injuries...

but the injuries werent as glaring an issue until that part of the schedule...guys got healthier over that course of 5 to 6 weeks, and then all cylinders were finally working...

the stats say we were near the worst defenses in the league. for a 5 or 6 game span, most definitely, and that span was brutal.

the first 8 games, and last 6, we werent even close to the worst, at all...

thats my whole worst to first statement issue

Drez

06-20-2012, 10:03 PM

LOL, i've literally seen those exact words said to you repeatedly and i've even expressed much of that...and now it finally makes sense?

and whats with this worst to first or first to worst sentiment u've been saying? we haven't been the best d in years, nor the worst...?you of all people should know its a team sport and that the d isnt the only reason we're champs right, they played awesomely dont get me wrong, but we also had an offense producing at an excellent level as well. winning the SB doesnt make the d #1 overall all of a sudden...just like it doesnt make eli the #1 qb all of a sudden lmfao cmon be fair

Well, our defense the last 6 weeks of the year would probably rate at the top, maybe not first, but close enough to warrant the expression.

i dunno. we def kicked *** defensively dont get me wrong. and we prob ranked among the best in the nfl for those 6 games, but for the season we were neither worst nor the first...
and its more directed to him saying we were the worst from the start of the season when thats simply not true. i've explained that when we got to 6-2, we were holding teams to either under 21 pts for the majority, or right at or around 21 pts...
any coach in the league, and i've heard d coordinators say this, many of them repeatedly, "if u can hold the opposing offense to under 21 points, we should win."

it wasnt til thjat brutal stretch for NO, GB and that whole 4 or 5 weeks vs the best offenses in the league that our d rankings really slid.

if u take away that NO game, the GB game, the dallas game at dallas, basically that whole stretch, our d was playing pretty well, especially consicering all the injuries...

but the injuries werent as glaring an issue until that part of the schedule...guys got healthier over that course of 5 to 6 weeks, and then all cylinders were finally working...

the stats say we were near the worst defenses in the league. for a 5 or 6 game span, most definitely, and that span was brutal.

the first 8 games, and last 6, we werent even close to the worst, at all...

thats my whole worst to first statement issue

Considering we were like 28th or under in yards and points defensively, I think you can make the claim for worst, lol.

gumby742

06-20-2012, 10:37 PM

The Sacking Wounded Every team must deal with injuries, but few teams in history have had to deal with the number of injuries the Giants suffered on defense this year. At Football Outsiders, we use a metric called Adjusted Games Lost (AGL) to determine how severe a team’s injury situation has been. AGL separates starters and key reserves from subs, so an injury to Umenyiora or another starter gets more weight than one to some seldom-used backup. It also accounts for weeks when a player is listed as “questionable” or “probable” but still takes the field, so when someone like Tuck shakes off a toe injury and takes the field in a limited role, it counts as a partial injury. AGL is a great argument settler, because it takes conversations past the “who cares about your whole linebacker corps, we lost our punt returner” stage. The Giants are on pace to finish the season with the third-highest defensive AGL of the last decade, behind only the 2008 Lions (who went 0-16) and the 2009 Bills (who went 6-10 and got their coach fired). Through Week 14, they lost the equivalent of 58.9 games by starters to injuries. That means the Giants go into the average game missing four defensive starters and key reserves. They have entered some games in far worse shape. Cornerback Corey Webster and safety Antrel Rolle are the only defenders to start all 15 games. The Giants lost top cornerback Terrell Thomas to an ACL injury in the middle of training camp. The mix-and-match job at linebacker has forced special teams ace Chase Blackburn to start a handful of games, and undrafted rookie Mark Herzlich climbed all the way to the starting middle linebacker job before suffering an injury of his own. The front four has been hit as hard as any other unit. Rookie tackle Marvin Austin was lost in training camp. Tuck and Umenyiora have only taken a handful of snaps together. The front four has been able to maintain its high standard of play because Perry Fewell has found creative ways to use his best players, creating confusion and applying pass pressure without resorting to rampant blitzing. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45807356/ns/sports-nfl </p>

The one thing that negates a lot of this though is that we were terrible at the start of the season (when most of the injuries occured) but we were some how really really good at the end of the season.</p>

And there were only a small handful of personnel differences between the beginning and the end. </p>

So, just because a back up is forced into a starting role early in the season it means he should play as well as the starter he's replacing?
</p>

Not sure I follow.* Are you saying that it took time (most of the reg. season) for the backups to learn the system/get into the flow of things?* And that was the reason for our struggles for most the season?</p>

Regardless, Thomas was the only starter we lost before the beginning of the season.* And Ross is a veteran and not a rookie still learning the ropes.</p>
We lost Goff, too, which was a hole we tried filling with multiple players all year. Osi was hurt a lot. Tuck was hurt a lot. We lost Boley for a couple games, and he was limited in the first couple back. We lost several of our nickle corners throughout the season, such as Tryon, which forced our starting safety into nickle CB duties. And regardless of Ross not being a rookie, that doesn't mean he's as good as TT. Think about it this way. Ross was competing for the 3rd CB spot in camp and looking like he was losing that battle...

The mid season injuries, don't account for much in my book, because like I was saying before, we were ****e when teh season started, but were awesome when it ended - when everyone was banged up.

But, i forgot about Goff. And you make a valid case regarding rookies needing to step up and learn the position. Now that I think about it, the fact that when Chase rejoined the team and our defense all of a sudden stepped up, it also supports your case. After all, he has the experience already and knows the system.

Well played sir.

Now the question is, does that warrant a last to best differential in performance?

LOL, i've literally seen those exact words said to you repeatedly and i've even expressed much of that...and now it finally makes sense?

and whats with this worst to first or first to worst sentiment u've been saying? we haven't been the best d in years, nor the worst...?you of all people should know its a team sport and that the d isnt the only reason we're champs right, they played awesomely dont get me wrong, but we also had an offense producing at an excellent level as well. winning the SB doesnt make the d #1 overall all of a sudden...just like it doesnt make eli the #1 qb all of a sudden lmfao cmon be fair

1) I don't know what you're trying to say half the time nor do I think you even take the time to read what other posters are saying.

2) I said Last to Best not to be taken literally, but to signify that our defense went from a bottom X defense to a top X defense - representing a significant change. But I didn't expect you to make the correlation, so I'm not surprised. As for the rest of the stuff, what on earth are you talking about?

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 10:45 PM

The Sacking Wounded Every team must deal with injuries, but few teams in history have had to deal with the number of injuries the Giants suffered on defense this year. At Football Outsiders, we use a metric called Adjusted Games Lost (AGL) to determine how severe a team’s injury situation has been. AGL separates starters and key reserves from subs, so an injury to Umenyiora or another starter gets more weight than one to some seldom-used backup. It also accounts for weeks when a player is listed as “questionable” or “probable” but still takes the field, so when someone like Tuck shakes off a toe injury and takes the field in a limited role, it counts as a partial injury. AGL is a great argument settler, because it takes conversations past the “who cares about your whole linebacker corps, we lost our punt returner” stage. The Giants are on pace to finish the season with the third-highest defensive AGL of the last decade, behind only the 2008 Lions (who went 0-16) and the 2009 Bills (who went 6-10 and got their coach fired). Through Week 14, they lost the equivalent of 58.9 games by starters to injuries. That means the Giants go into the average game missing four defensive starters and key reserves. They have entered some games in far worse shape. Cornerback Corey Webster and safety Antrel Rolle are the only defenders to start all 15 games. The Giants lost top cornerback Terrell Thomas to an ACL injury in the middle of training camp. The mix-and-match job at linebacker has forced special teams ace Chase Blackburn to start a handful of games, and undrafted rookie Mark Herzlich climbed all the way to the starting middle linebacker job before suffering an injury of his own. The front four has been hit as hard as any other unit. Rookie tackle Marvin Austin was lost in training camp. Tuck and Umenyiora have only taken a handful of snaps together. The front four has been able to maintain its high standard of play because Perry Fewell has found creative ways to use his best players, creating confusion and applying pass pressure without resorting to rampant blitzing. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45807356/ns/sports-nfl </p>

The one thing that negates a lot of this though is that we were terrible at the start of the season (when most of the injuries occured) but we were some how really really good at the end of the season.</p>

And there were only a small handful of personnel differences between the beginning and the end. </p>

So, just because a back up is forced into a starting role early in the season it means he should play as well as the starter he's replacing?
</p>

Not sure I follow.* Are you saying that it took time (most of the reg. season) for the backups to learn the system/get into the flow of things?* And that was the reason for our struggles for most the season?</p>

Regardless, Thomas was the only starter we lost before the beginning of the season.* And Ross is a veteran and not a rookie still learning the ropes.</p>
We lost Goff, too, which was a hole we tried filling with multiple players all year. Osi was hurt a lot. Tuck was hurt a lot. We lost Boley for a couple games, and he was limited in the first couple back. We lost several of our nickle corners throughout the season, such as Tryon, which forced our starting safety into nickle CB duties. And regardless of Ross not being a rookie, that doesn't mean he's as good as TT. Think about it this way. Ross was competing for the 3rd CB spot in camp and looking like he was losing that battle...

The mid season injuries, don't account for much in my book, because like I was saying before, we were ****e when teh season started, but were awesome when it ended - when everyone was banged up.

But, i forgot about Goff. And you make a valid case regarding rookies needing to step up and learn the position. Now that I think about it, the fact that when Chase rejoined the team and our defense all of a sudden stepped up, it also supports your case. After all, he has the experience already and knows the system.

Well played sir.

Now the question is, does that warrant a last to best differential in performance?

LOL, i've literally seen those exact words said to you repeatedly and i've even expressed much of that...and now it finally makes sense?

and whats with this worst to first or first to worst sentiment u've been saying? we haven't been the best d in years, nor the worst...?you of all people should know its a team sport and that the d isnt the only reason we're champs right, they played awesomely dont get me wrong, but we also had an offense producing at an excellent level as well. winning the SB doesnt make the d #1 overall all of a sudden...just like it doesnt make eli the #1 qb all of a sudden lmfao cmon be fair

1) I don't know what you're trying to say half the time nor do I think you even take the time to read what other posters are saying.

2) I said Last to Best not to be taken literally, but to signify that our defense went from a bottom X defense to a top X defense - representing a significant change. But I didn't expect you to make the correlation, so I'm not surprised. As for the rest of the stuff, what on earth are you talking about?

and yet i've never had some one make such a claim with me before...

i think you just may have reading comprehension problems honestly...literally drez and i carried out a conversation based on those posts, the very one you cite...so i mean i dunno what to tell you.

if anything i'd think you'd be used to that anyways. i've seen you say "2) I said (topic) not to be taken literally, but to signify that " or some variation of that repeatedly after some one has questioned an absurd claim you've made.

you've said worst to first in several posts, in diff threads...and yet u dont mean it literally...hmmm

lmfao. and if u dont understand, then why do u continually try and enter in a conversation with me. just leave it be then.

edit-and i realize what you stated about the worst to first wasnt to be literally taken, i still disagree with ur claim.

our statistical rankings are going to be skewed bc of the brutal part of the schedule we had vs the best offenses in the league. if u look at the first 8 games, we werent all that bad, especially considering the injuries.

that brutal stretch was well, brutal. and it killed us statistically esp the NO game. then week 14 on we killed it...we'll be ranked poorly statistically bc of that stretch and some other few ****ty games but they werent even all that terrible. thats my point.

u look at one final number that represents a culmination of things, and then apply a one size fit all opinion based on it. and imho, its stupid. esepcially when using somewhat irrelevant stats.

our d by no means played well for much of the season. at the same time, they didnt play god awful, all but a few games vs teams we werent even given a chance against...

if u consider the entire season, game by game, i'd say considering injuries, things worked out exactly as one would expect...not just using two stats...lmfao

NYG 5

06-20-2012, 10:46 PM

the thing you can say about the defense these days, is that they come to play in the clutch. sure, they fell apart down the stretch when everything was up for grabs, but when it came down to buckle down, they did. especially as they got healthier.

same for the 2007 team, and to an extent, the 2008 team. the 2009 team was bad, and the 2010 team lost its mind for 2 weeks after a once in a lifetime game. but, in the recent years that the giants have gone to the playoffs, the defense has been pretty clutch.

as opposed to some better statistical defenses, like 2000, 2001, and 2002, which allowed too many comebacks. letting brandon stokley and quadry ismail light them up in a super bowl, all the late game mcnabb drama in 2001, and the meltdowns against running QBs in 2002. they never came up with the big stop when they needed to. at least the past year, they have.

gumby742

06-20-2012, 11:06 PM

and yet i've never had some one make such a claim with me before...

i think you just may have reading comprehension problems honestly...literally drez and i carried out a conversation based on those posts, the very one you cite...so i mean i dunno what to tell you.

if anything i'd think you'd be used to that anyways. i've seen you say "2) I said (topic) not to be taken literally, but to signify that " or some variation of that repeatedly after some one has questioned an absurd claim you've made.

you've said worst to first in several posts, in diff threads...and yet u dont mean it literally...hmmm

lmfao. and if u dont understand, then why do u continually try and enter in a conversation with me. just leave it be then.

edit-and i realize what you stated about the worst to first wasnt to be literally taken, i still disagree with ur claim.

our statistical rankings are going to be skewed bc of the brutal part of the schedule we had vs the best offenses in the league. if u look at the first 8 games, we werent all that bad, especially considering the injuries.

that brutal stretch was well, brutal. and it killed us statistically esp the NO game. then week 14 on we killed it...we'll be ranked poorly statistically bc of that stretch and some other few ****ty games but they werent even all that terrible. thats my point.

u look at one final number that represents a culmination of things, and then apply a one size fit all opinion based on it. and imho, its stupid. esepcially when using somewhat irrelevant stats.

our d by no means played well for much of the season. at the same time, they didnt play god awful, all but a few games vs teams we werent even given a chance against...

if u consider the entire season, game by game, i'd say considering injuries, things worked out exactly as one would expect...not just using two stats...lmfao

Ok then. So you're in the overwhelming minority that thinks the Giant defense wasn't terrible last year prior to our run. To each his/her own.

Morehead State

06-20-2012, 11:11 PM

and yet i've never had some one make such a claim with me before... i think you just may have reading comprehension problems honestly...literally drez and i carried out a conversation based on those posts, the very one you cite...so i mean i dunno what to tell you. if anything i'd think you'd be used to that anyways. i've seen you say "2) I said (topic) not to be taken literally, but to signify that " or some variation of that repeatedly after some one has questioned an absurd claim you've made. you've said worst to first in several posts, in diff threads...and yet u dont mean it literally...hmmm lmfao. and if u dont understand, then why do u continually try and enter in a conversation with me. just leave it be then. edit-and i realize what you stated about the worst to first wasnt to be literally taken, i still disagree with ur claim. our statistical rankings are going to be skewed bc of the brutal part of the schedule we had vs the best offenses in the league. if u look at the first 8 games, we werent all that bad, especially considering the injuries. that brutal stretch was well, brutal. and it killed us statistically esp the NO game. then week 14 on we killed it...we'll be ranked poorly statistically bc of that stretch and some other few ****ty games but they werent even all that terrible. thats my point. u look at one final number that represents a culmination of things, and then apply a one size fit all opinion based on it. and imho, its stupid. esepcially when using somewhat irrelevant stats. our d by no means played well for much of the season. at the same time, they didnt play god awful, all but a few games vs teams we werent even given a chance against... if u consider the entire season, game by game, i'd say considering injuries, things worked out exactly as one would expect...not just using two stats...lmfao Ok then. So you're in the overwhelming minority that thinks the Giant defense wasn't terrible last year prior to our run. To each his/her own.</P>

The defense was certainly horrible for a good part of the season.</P>

But they picked it up and played great when it meant the most. We played toe to toe with some very good offenses when we had to.</P>

So how do you evaluate our 2011 defense?</P>

I say a "SB winning defense".</P>

Drez

06-20-2012, 11:17 PM

and yet i've never had some one make such a claim with me before... i think you just may have reading comprehension problems honestly...literally drez and i carried out a conversation based on those posts, the very one you cite...so i mean i dunno what to tell you. if anything i'd think you'd be used to that anyways. i've seen you say "2) I said (topic) not to be taken literally, but to signify that " or some variation of that repeatedly after some one has questioned an absurd claim you've made. you've said worst to first in several posts, in diff threads...and yet u dont mean it literally...hmmm lmfao. and if u dont understand, then why do u continually try and enter in a conversation with me. just leave it be then. edit-and i realize what you stated about the worst to first wasnt to be literally taken, i still disagree with ur claim. our statistical rankings are going to be skewed bc of the brutal part of the schedule we had vs the best offenses in the league. if u look at the first 8 games, we werent all that bad, especially considering the injuries. that brutal stretch was well, brutal. and it killed us statistically esp the NO game. then week 14 on we killed it...we'll be ranked poorly statistically bc of that stretch and some other few ****ty games but they werent even all that terrible. thats my point. u look at one final number that represents a culmination of things, and then apply a one size fit all opinion based on it. and imho, its stupid. esepcially when using somewhat irrelevant stats. our d by no means played well for much of the season. at the same time, they didnt play god awful, all but a few games vs teams we werent even given a chance against... if u consider the entire season, game by game, i'd say considering injuries, things worked out exactly as one would expect...not just using two stats...lmfao Ok then. So you're in the overwhelming minority that thinks the Giant defense wasn't terrible last year prior to our run. To each his/her own.</p>

The defense was certainly horrible for a good part of the season.</p>

But they picked it up and played great when it meant the most. We played toe to toe with some very good offenses when we had to.</p>

So how do you evaluate our 2011 defense?</p>

I say a "SB winning defense".</p>
Well said, MS.

Also, check your PMs. I sent you one last night after 'Rooni's thread got deleted.

giantsfan420

06-20-2012, 11:18 PM

and yet i've never had some one make such a claim with me before...

i think you just may have reading comprehension problems honestly...literally drez and i carried out a conversation based on those posts, the very one you cite...so i mean i dunno what to tell you.

if anything i'd think you'd be used to that anyways. i've seen you say "2) I said (topic) not to be taken literally, but to signify that " or some variation of that repeatedly after some one has questioned an absurd claim you've made.

you've said worst to first in several posts, in diff threads...and yet u dont mean it literally...hmmm

lmfao. and if u dont understand, then why do u continually try and enter in a conversation with me. just leave it be then.

edit-and i realize what you stated about the worst to first wasnt to be literally taken, i still disagree with ur claim.

our statistical rankings are going to be skewed bc of the brutal part of the schedule we had vs the best offenses in the league. if u look at the first 8 games, we werent all that bad, especially considering the injuries.

that brutal stretch was well, brutal. and it killed us statistically esp the NO game. then week 14 on we killed it...we'll be ranked poorly statistically bc of that stretch and some other few ****ty games but they werent even all that terrible. thats my point.

u look at one final number that represents a culmination of things, and then apply a one size fit all opinion based on it. and imho, its stupid. esepcially when using somewhat irrelevant stats.

our d by no means played well for much of the season. at the same time, they didnt play god awful, all but a few games vs teams we werent even given a chance against...

if u consider the entire season, game by game, i'd say considering injuries, things worked out exactly as one would expect...not just using two stats...lmfao

Ok then. So you're in the overwhelming minority that thinks the Giant defense wasn't terrible last year prior to our run. To each his/her own.

so on our way to 6-2, our d was terrible then?

we held almost every opponent to under 21 pts or right around 21 pts...

we were beyond terrible vs NO GB etc etc, ya know, the brutal stretch of our schedule that would test any d in the league and that the entire world knew was BRUTAL...then week 14 we turned it on.

i think ur in the minority with the whole "injuries played no role and had no relevance on our d" lmfao...

which is my point ultimately. the d was overall pretty avg at times, considering the injuries, i'd say game by game, u could look at it and go "that played out how u'd think."...we played around a level a lot of us expected. that brutal stretch just killed us statistically. if u would look at more than just a finite number that is just an avg of every game, then u'd have a clearer understanding imho especially when interpreting stats out of context

Morehead State

06-20-2012, 11:26 PM

and yet i've never had some one make such a claim with me before... i think you just may have reading comprehension problems honestly...literally drez and i carried out a conversation based on those posts, the very one you cite...so i mean i dunno what to tell you. if anything i'd think you'd be used to that anyways. i've seen you say "2) I said (topic) not to be taken literally, but to signify that " or some variation of that repeatedly after some one has questioned an absurd claim you've made. you've said worst to first in several posts, in diff threads...and yet u dont mean it literally...hmmm lmfao. and if u dont understand, then why do u continually try and enter in a conversation with me. just leave it be then. edit-and i realize what you stated about the worst to first wasnt to be literally taken, i still disagree with ur claim. our statistical rankings are going to be skewed bc of the brutal part of the schedule we had vs the best offenses in the league. if u look at the first 8 games, we werent all that bad, especially considering the injuries. that brutal stretch was well, brutal. and it killed us statistically esp the NO game. then week 14 on we killed it...we'll be ranked poorly statistically bc of that stretch and some other few ****ty games but they werent even all that terrible. thats my point. u look at one final number that represents a culmination of things, and then apply a one size fit all opinion based on it. and imho, its stupid. esepcially when using somewhat irrelevant stats. our d by no means played well for much of the season. at the same time, they didnt play god awful, all but a few games vs teams we werent even given a chance against... if u consider the entire season, game by game, i'd say considering injuries, things worked out exactly as one would expect...not just using two stats...lmfao Ok then. So you're in the overwhelming minority that thinks the Giant defense wasn't terrible last year prior to our run. To each his/her own.</P>

The defense was certainly horrible for a good part of the season.</P>

But they picked it up and played great when it meant the most. We played toe to toe with some very good offenses when we had to.</P>

So how do you evaluate our 2011 defense?</P>

I say a "SB winning defense".</P>

Well said, MS.

Also, check your PMs. I sent you one last night after 'Rooni's thread got deleted.
</P>

Responded.</P>

Morehead State

06-20-2012, 11:29 PM

and yet i've never had some one make such a claim with me before... i think you just may have reading comprehension problems honestly...literally drez and i carried out a conversation based on those posts, the very one you cite...so i mean i dunno what to tell you. if anything i'd think you'd be used to that anyways. i've seen you say "2) I said (topic) not to be taken literally, but to signify that " or some variation of that repeatedly after some one has questioned an absurd claim you've made. you've said worst to first in several posts, in diff threads...and yet u dont mean it literally...hmmm lmfao. and if u dont understand, then why do u continually try and enter in a conversation with me. just leave it be then. edit-and i realize what you stated about the worst to first wasnt to be literally taken, i still disagree with ur claim. our statistical rankings are going to be skewed bc of the brutal part of the schedule we had vs the best offenses in the league. if u look at the first 8 games, we werent all that bad, especially considering the injuries. that brutal stretch was well, brutal. and it killed us statistically esp the NO game. then week 14 on we killed it...we'll be ranked poorly statistically bc of that stretch and some other few ****ty games but they werent even all that terrible. thats my point. u look at one final number that represents a culmination of things, and then apply a one size fit all opinion based on it. and imho, its stupid. esepcially when using somewhat irrelevant stats. our d by no means played well for much of the season. at the same time, they didnt play god awful, all but a few games vs teams we werent even given a chance against... if u consider the entire season, game by game, i'd say considering injuries, things worked out exactly as one would expect...not just using two stats...lmfao Ok then. So you're in the overwhelming minority that thinks the Giant defense wasn't terrible last year prior to our run. To each his/her own. so on our way to 6-2, our d was terrible then? we held almost every opponent to under 21 pts or right around 21 pts... we were beyond terrible vs NO GB etc etc, ya know, the brutal stretch of our schedule that would test any d in the league and that the entire world knew was BRUTAL...then week 14 we turned it on. i think ur in the minority with the whole "injuries played no role and had no relevance on our d" lmfao... which is my point ultimately. the d was overall pretty avg at times, considering the injuries, i'd say game by game, u could look at it and go "that played out how u'd think."...we played around a level a lot of us expected. that brutal stretch just killed us statistically. if u would look at more than just a finite number that is just an avg of every game, then u'd have a clearer understanding imho especially when interpreting stats out of context</P>

Well they really weren't playing well. We won a lot of high scoring games. But as I said, they came together and ended up playing great after "the play"</P>

I really don't remember any play turning a team around completely like the Cruz play against the Jets.</P>

It was actually incredible. We were a different team in all phases after that play. We looked like the 86 Giants after that. I can't explain it but it certainly happened.</P>

GreenZone

06-21-2012, 01:07 AM

It was actually incredible. We were a different team in all phases after that play. We looked like the 86 Giants after that. I can't explain it but it certainly happened.

So, my point in all this Eli and the defense distraction could be put another way:

Which team is going to show up this year? And it's certainly a different mix of players than even ended last season. Is this going to be a breakout year, where the defense shows it really can live up to some potential of a championship team?

Is it going to start to hold its end of the bargain and do it consistently?

DragonSoul

06-21-2012, 05:06 AM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

some years were based on injuries, as they were last year. Some are based on bad coaching/players. I think we are a bit better than those numbers suggest in general, when healthy.

Rat_bastich

06-21-2012, 06:22 AM

It was actually incredible. We were a different team in all phases after that play.* We looked like the 86 Giants after that.* I can't explain it but it certainly happened.

So, my point in all this Eli and the defense distraction could be put another way:

Which team is going to show up this year? And it's certainly a different mix of players than even ended last season. Is this going to be a breakout year, where the defense shows it really can live up to some potential of a championship team?

Is it going to start to hold its end of the bargain and do it consistently?

That has been the issue for quite some time is that the defense has been inconsistent and so has the offense. It wasn't until this last season that the offense actually maintained consistency. Every game I was waiting for the bottom to drop out.

I didn't really start noticing the defense stepping up until after the Dallas game that JPP became a one-man wrecking crew. I think that motivated the defensive side because they saw how bad that guy wanted to win. After that, in my mind, the defense seemed to grow a pair and show up every game.

What we'll get this year I or anyone has no idea.

gumby742

06-21-2012, 09:26 AM

and yet i've never had some one make such a claim with me before... i think you just may have reading comprehension problems honestly...literally drez and i carried out a conversation based on those posts, the very one you cite...so i mean i dunno what to tell you. if anything i'd think you'd be used to that anyways. i've seen you say "2) I said (topic) not to be taken literally, but to signify that " or some variation of that repeatedly after some one has questioned an absurd claim you've made. you've said worst to first in several posts, in diff threads...and yet u dont mean it literally...hmmm lmfao. and if u dont understand, then why do u continually try and enter in a conversation with me. just leave it be then. edit-and i realize what you stated about the worst to first wasnt to be literally taken, i still disagree with ur claim. our statistical rankings are going to be skewed bc of the brutal part of the schedule we had vs the best offenses in the league. if u look at the first 8 games, we werent all that bad, especially considering the injuries. that brutal stretch was well, brutal. and it killed us statistically esp the NO game. then week 14 on we killed it...we'll be ranked poorly statistically bc of that stretch and some other few ****ty games but they werent even all that terrible. thats my point. u look at one final number that represents a culmination of things, and then apply a one size fit all opinion based on it. and imho, its stupid. esepcially when using somewhat irrelevant stats. our d by no means played well for much of the season. at the same time, they didnt play god awful, all but a few games vs teams we werent even given a chance against... if u consider the entire season, game by game, i'd say considering injuries, things worked out exactly as one would expect...not just using two stats...lmfao Ok then. So you're in the overwhelming minority that thinks the Giant defense wasn't terrible last year prior to our run. To each his/her own.</P>

The defense was certainly horrible for a good part of the season.</P>

But they picked it up and played great when it meant the most. We played toe to toe with some very good offenses when we had to.</P>

So how do you evaluate our 2011 defense?</P>

I say a "SB winning defense".</P>

</P>

I don't know what to make of them. </P>

Drez, brought up an extremely good point that has me thinking twice. But at the end of the day, I don't see why we wouldn't have been an average defense - even with all the injuries, instead of a bad one. I mean, <U>a defense with Webster, Boley, Canty, Joseph, JPP, KP, Rolleshouldn't be THAT bad</U>. <U>Average should have been achievable</U> imo.</P>

The 2011 was as you said good enough to win us the SB, but it was also bad enough to cost us the post season. So who knows. </P>

I have no idea what's going to happen in 2012, but I can't say I have confidence that Fewell will be able to adjust accordingly when faced with adversity. For the record, what I'm NOT saying is that Fewell sucks nor am I saying that he won't do a good job.</P>

NYG 5

06-21-2012, 10:23 AM

the defense also took a turn for the better when tuck finally got his health and confidence back.

JPP also got hot later on in the year. as did Chases, although he was really fired up from the get go.

i think those were the cogs that got the defense going. I mean, boley was doing great all year, but he was really the only star for a long stretch of games, and then he got hurt. once chase, jpp, and tuck, and ross really started to get it going, the defense became very good. probably the #2 defense going into the playoffs behind SF.

buddy33

06-21-2012, 10:45 AM

Health played a huge role in why they where so inconsistent. Look at the 1st game against Green Bay. Tuck was still hurting, I think Osi was not playing, it was the 1st game for Chase, Boley was no 100%, Prince was still learning on the job, and they lost KP half way through the game. Now look how they dominated Green Bay on their home field with all those players back at full strength.

GreenZone

06-21-2012, 11:04 AM

In the playoffs, on the other hand, the most recent games played, the Giants were third in yards per game out of the 16 playoff teams. Although, most of those teams don't have the representative sample of games (half only played one game), still, the G-men gave up only a stingy 328 avg. yards per game against top opponents. And in points per game allowed (14), the team landed at the top of the heap.

So, we saw before our eyes a revamped, healthier and tough defense pulling through against top competition when it counted the most.

Still, has this team has yet to prove it can shut down the Redskins. It hasn't shown it can keep the Cowboys from competing in a shootout. The regular season is a marathon, vs. a win-and-live to see another day life of the playoffs.

Playing with a consistent excellence when your back isn't against the wall is a different mentality altogether.

And playing half your schedule against four tough teams that know you inside out is a different ballgame. None of those opponents were part of the 2011 post season.

gumby742

06-21-2012, 01:23 PM

Health played a huge role in why they where so inconsistent. Look at the 1st game against Green Bay. Tuck was still hurting, I think Osi was not playing, it was the 1st game for Chase, Boley was no 100%, Prince was still learning on the job, and they lost KP half way through the game. Now look how they dominated Green Bay on their home field with all those players back at full strength.</P>

How do you explain that they were terrible in the beginning/middle of the season when people were healthy? And does that explain such a huge drop off between our post season defenses form and the beginning of the seasons?</P>

Redeyejedi

06-21-2012, 02:01 PM

Health played a huge role in why they where so inconsistent. Look at the 1st game against Green Bay. Tuck was still hurting, I think Osi was not playing, it was the 1st game for Chase, Boley was no 100%, Prince was still learning on the job, and they lost KP half way through the game. Now look how they dominated Green Bay on their home field with all those players back at full strength.</P>

How do you explain that they were terrible in the beginning/middle of the season when people were healthy?* And does that explain such a huge drop off between our post season defenses form and the beginning of the seasons?</P>The team was never healthy. The Giants had all those injuries in the secondary. After the top 2 corners they had nothing

giantsfan420

06-21-2012, 02:02 PM

Health played a huge role in why they where so inconsistent. Look at the 1st game against Green Bay. Tuck was still hurting, I think Osi was not playing, it was the 1st game for Chase, Boley was no 100%, Prince was still learning on the job, and they lost KP half way through the game. Now look how they dominated Green Bay on their home field with all those players back at full strength.</P>

How do you explain that they were terrible in the beginning/middle of the season when people were healthy?* And does that explain such a huge drop off between our post season defenses form and the beginning of the seasons?</P>

WE WERENT TERRIBLE THE BEGGINING OF THE SEASON. on the way to 6-2, ur saying our d was terrible????/

i saw MS say we won a lot of high scoring games, no we didnt. we had what, 2 somewhat high scoring games? az and seattle? and even seattle they had a defensive td, and vs az i think we turned it over like on our 10 but besides those games, our d was not terrible to the extent u label it. it certainly wasnt the worst in the league at that point and i'd bet if u went back and looked, we'd be around 20th or maybe lower...with the injuries, that isnt the end of the world.

every other game the opposing offenses were under 21 or right around 21. that is the goal of every d at least if u ask the coaches, i've heard it said a million times. "if we can hold them to or under 21, we should win."

dont misinterpret that to mean we were good defensively...we weren't. but we werent terrible. we were right at what most expected bc of the injuries.

it was when we entered that brutal part of the season we were horribly terrible...NO and GB and at Dallas killed us, and skewed the rankings of yrds and pts given up. what seperated us from the league avg in yards was like 40 yrds given up more, and points was like 2 more given up than average...
the brutal streak was a huge factor in that.

then week 14, the d turned it back on.

we had a bunch of stinkers...we were deflated by injuries (refer to the article before u even introduce that fallacy that "injuries? so?? had nothing to do with it.")
but we also had a large part of the season where we werent terrible...

look at the d game by game instead of the end of year ppg and ypg stats...

the only thing we were the worst at all year was consistency...

gumby742

06-21-2012, 02:06 PM

Health played a huge role in why they where so inconsistent. Look at the 1st game against Green Bay. Tuck was still hurting, I think Osi was not playing, it was the 1st game for Chase, Boley was no 100%, Prince was still learning on the job, and they lost KP half way through the game. Now look how they dominated Green Bay on their home field with all those players back at full strength.</P>

How do you explain that they were terrible in the beginning/middle of the season when people were healthy? And does that explain such a huge drop off between our post season defenses form and the beginning of the seasons?</P>

The team was never healthy. The Giants had all those injuries in the secondary. After the top 2 corners they had nothing</P>

If healthy was the primary reason, and we were never healthy, then we should have stunk the entire season no? What I'm getting at is that something else happened in the middle of the season that caused us to turn it on and becomes a different defense.</P>

gumby742

06-21-2012, 02:08 PM

Health played a huge role in why they where so inconsistent. Look at the 1st game against Green Bay. Tuck was still hurting, I think Osi was not playing, it was the 1st game for Chase, Boley was no 100%, Prince was still learning on the job, and they lost KP half way through the game. Now look how they dominated Green Bay on their home field with all those players back at full strength.</P>

How do you explain that they were terrible in the beginning/middle of the season when people were healthy? And does that explain such a huge drop off between our post season defenses form and the beginning of the seasons?</P>

WE WERENT TERRIBLE THE BEGGINING OF THE SEASON. on the way to 6-2, ur saying our d was terrible????/ i saw MS say we won a lot of high scoring games, no we didnt. we had what, 2 somewhat high scoring games? az and seattle? and even seattle they had a defensive td, and vs az i think we turned it over like on our 10 but besides those games, our d was not terrible to the extent u label it. it certainly wasnt the worst in the league at that point and i'd bet if u went back and looked, we'd be around 20th or maybe lower...with the injuries, that isnt the end of the world. every other game the opposing offenses were under 21 or right around 21. that is the goal of every d at least if u ask the coaches, i've heard it said a million times. "if we can hold them to or under 21, we should win." dont misinterpret that to mean we were good defensively...we weren't. but we werent terrible. we were right at what most expected bc of the injuries. it was when we entered that brutal part of the season we were horribly terrible...NO and GB and at Dallas killed us, and skewed the rankings of yrds and pts given up. what seperated us from the league avg in yards was like 40 yrds given up more, and points was like 2 more given up than average... the brutal streak was a huge factor in that. then week 14, the d turned it back on. we had a bunch of stinkers...we were deflated by injuries (refer to the article before u even introduce that fallacy that "injuries? so?? had nothing to do with it.") but we also had a large part of the season where we werent terrible... look at the d game by game instead of the end of year ppg and ypg stats... the only thing we were the worst at all year was consistency...</P>

Again, you can be a part of the minority that thinks our defense wasn't terrible for most of the regular season last year. To each his/her own.</P>

You know that evaluating a defense goes beyond points allowed right? How about total yards? etc? We were close to last in almost every other statistical category. On top of that, all of us watched the same game. And the overwhelming opinion was that we weren't a very good defense most of the regular season.</P>

buddy33

06-21-2012, 02:13 PM

They started the season without their #2 CB and lost all their depth. In a passing league it helps to have more than just 2 CB's and it also helps o have a pass rush. Tuck was hurt most of the season and Osi missed 8 games. They where only on the field together for a couple of regular season games. At one point in the middle of the season, when they where at their worst, Tuck was playing injured, Osi was not playing, KP was injured, Boley was injured, and they where using players off the street.

When did they start he season healthy? In the middle of the season they where healthy?

gumby742

06-21-2012, 02:20 PM

They started the season without their #2 CB and lost all their depth. In a passing league it helps to have more than just 2 CB's and it also helps o have a pass rush. Tuck was hurt most of the season and Osi missed 8 games. They where only on the field together for a couple of regular season games. At one point in the middle of the season, when they where at their worst, Tuck was playing injured, Osi was not playing, KP was injured, Boley was injured, and they where using players off the street. When did they start he season healthy? In the middle of the season they where healthy?</P>

Yeah, but my point was that we started the season healthier. Yet we were still terrible. What caused the turnaround at the end? If healthy/injury really was the major reason, we should have been still terrible. But, we weren't.</P>

NYG 5

06-21-2012, 02:25 PM

There needs to be more stats. I despise defensive rankings being based on yards. The difference between the #1 and #15 defense is oftentimes 50 yards.

You need to look at red zone defense, rushing yards, yards per pass attempt(including sack yardage and incompletions) and completion pct, as well as points turnovers and sacks.

gumby742

06-21-2012, 02:33 PM

There needs to be more stats. I despise defensive rankings being based on yards. The difference between the #1 and #15 defense is oftentimes 50 yards. You need to look at red zone defense, rushing yards, yards per pass attempt(including sack yardage and incompletions) and completion pct, as well as points turnovers and sacks.</P>

Yards, Points, etc you name it.I'm pretty sure we were close to the bttom for all of them.</P>

We were average/below average in Sacks,Fumbles,3rd down stops and maybe a couple others. Other than that we were near the bottom. That's not very good.</P>

buddy33

06-21-2012, 02:33 PM

They started the season using Ross as their #2 CB and had 0 depth at the position. They where also using Rolle, a Safety, out of his position. Tuck was injured in the pre season game against the Jets and was absolutely not healthy to start the season? In fact he and Osi missed the start of the season.

So how where hey so healthy to start he season?

gumby742

06-21-2012, 02:37 PM

They started the season using Ross as their #2 CB and had 0 depth at the position. They where also using Rolle, a Safety, out of his position. Tuck was injured in the pre season game against the Jets and was absolutely not healthy to start the season? In fact he and Osi missed the start of the season. So how where hey so healthy to start he season?</P>

Let me amend my post.</P>

buddy33

06-21-2012, 02:39 PM

So having a banged up Tuck and Osi is the same as having a healthy Tuck and Osi?

buddy33

06-21-2012, 02:46 PM

I'm trying to understand your point. You are saying that the where healthier to start the season when in fact 2 of heir premier DE's did not even start the season, the had no depth in the secondary, where using players out of position, and rookies in a lock out year. How is that healthier than the end of the season?

Then you say regardless of what happened in the pre season with injuries they where able to play good at the end? Yeah no kidding, they where getting healthier. Injuries where in fact a direct result in them laying so poorly.

giantsfan420

06-21-2012, 02:49 PM

gumby, ur comprehending what im saying incorrectly. im not saying that they didnt play poorly for parts of the season. they did.

im saying, they played about the level most of us expected considering all the factors.

heading into week 9, iirc, we were ranked around 20th or 17th in a lot of categories, in that area.

when we entered that brutal stretch, our "finger in the hole in the dam" (barely getting by with whatever we could ie herz starting mlb one game, jones others, getting blackburn...using tryon at nickel after losing spoon. using rolle after we lost tryon...etc.etc.) the opposing top ranked offenses exploited and decimated us...severely. that stretch is skewing the stats. how do u not get that?

AGAIN, GO WEEK BY WEEK INSTEAD OF USING JUST THE YPG AND PPG (which, as another poster, ny 5 i believe mentioned, the diff. between us and 15th ranked was like 40 ypg and 2 ppg...lmfao) you misuse statistics, which i think is why your always in such a minority in your opinions...this whole thing is about whether injuries factored in or not...look at how many pages and diff posters have brought diff well thought points and examples...

like i said, if that article dont budge you off your stance, even if its slight, then nothing will...

giantsfan420

06-21-2012, 02:51 PM

and if injuries werent a factor, why has every coach and player acknowledged injuries and how we need to do whatever we can to stay healthy and how the injuries led to a lot of the inconsistency.

like 98% of everyone i've heard, analyst, player or casual fan, has acknowledged that at the least, injuries were in some way a factor...you won't even do that like huh?

BeatYale

06-21-2012, 03:00 PM

These stats are misleading because poor play by the offense can make the defense look better in regards to yardage allowed. Like all the boneheaded turnovers by Eli and the offense in 2010 resulted in shorter fields for the opposing offenses - thus we ranked high in yards allowed (7th), but our points allowed didn't match up (17th). The defense probably had poor 3rd down efficiency that year as well. So it wasn't as good as it seemed on paper when using these two stats as the measuring stick.

gumby742

06-21-2012, 03:08 PM

I'm trying to understand your point. You are saying that the where healthier to start the season when in fact 2 of heir premier DE's did not even start the season, the had no depth in the secondary, where using players out of position, and rookies in a lock out year. How is that healthier than the end of the season? Then you say regardless of what happened in the pre season with injuries they where able to play good at the end? Yeah no kidding, they where getting healthier. Injuries where in fact a direct result in them laying so poorly.</P>

Sorry, I'm at work. So my bad if I'm not clear.</P>

Let me put it another way.Fact: We were terrible in the beginning, but great at the end.</P>

Let's examine the major difference between the beginning and the end of the season. I can only find 2.</P>

1) Blackburn took over. 2) Osi came back.</P>

Anything else I'm missing? So basically from an injury standpoint, #1 and #2 and anything I might have missed caused us to go from a bad defense to a top defense. </P>

I have problems buying that. My point is that it's gotta be something else that is the major contributing factor, not injury. Because not much really changed. Any defense with Canty, Webster, Boley, JPP, KP, Joseph, and Rolle alone has no excuse to be a bottom 5 defense.</P>

B&RWarrior

06-21-2012, 03:17 PM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

Awesome post.

These stats are eye opening. I would swear we were the kings of D for the last 10 years, apprently not so.

Looking at the stats with a more positive view only 4 season did we rank below 13th in yards allowed and the last time we did this we won the SB. So now looking a the 3 truly poor defensive efforts in terms of yard allowed- 06', 05', 03'- 05' wasn't that bad in terms of points allowed.

Spags had a good system, but he didn't do it with a lack of talent. AP in the middle, Webster and Madison at CB, Gibril Wilson at safety, Strahan, Tuck, Osi, Robbinson the line and as a Rookie Ross at CB was lights out. The core of the defense stayed intact for 2008. NFL is a players league. Good things don't happen without good players.

I like the 07' defense over the 2011 defense all day long. I take Strahan over JPP. Yes I'll take 7 less sacks for more consistent QB pressure and way better run defense at the point of attack. Remember Strahan was double and tripled team all year long in 2007 not just in the SB. Fred Robbins clearly is better than any tackle on 2011 team. Wilson is head and shoulders above Rolle or KP. AP is...you get the point.

2011 defense is younger and less experienced than 2007. They have room to improve. Their immaturity also could be a reason they don't bring their A game fresh off a SB victory.

I think you should judge last year's D on how they finished the season not how they began. Fewell tweaked not only for the personell that was injured but for what players weaknesses and strengths were as they became apparrent as the season progressed.

buddy33

06-21-2012, 03:22 PM

How can ou leave Tuck out of that? He is a premier DE in this league and when he was healthy he was great. In fact he was probably their best defensive player in the Super Bowl. So the beginn of the season had them missing 2, not 1, DE, using rookie LB's because of injury, and for the entire season using Rolle out of position.

The difference at the end of the season was they had Tuck and Osi back and playing healthy. Prince added some depth and played very well in the pos season. J Williams became a better player at the end of the season.

I gave the example of the 1st Green Bay game and the 2nd game. Look at who was hurt and plain or not even playing in the 1st game. The look at the 2nd game and loom at who was now healthy and who was now playing. They dominated that 2nd game.

gumby742

06-21-2012, 03:26 PM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

Awesome post. These stats are eye opening. I would swear we were the kings of D for the last 10 years, apprently not so. Looking at the stats with a more positive view only 4 season did we rank below 13th in yards allowed and the last time we did this we won the SB. So now looking a the 3 truly poor defensive efforts in terms of yard allowed- 06', 05', 03'- 05' wasn't that bad in terms of points allowed. Spags had a good system, but he didn't do it with a lack of talent. AP in the middle, Webster and Madison at CB, Gibril Wilson at safety, Strahan, Tuck, Osi, Robbinson the line and as a Rookie Ross at CB was lights out. The core of the defense stayed intact for 2008. NFL is a players league. Good things don't happen without good players. I like the 07' defense over the 2011 defense all day long. I take Strahan over JPP. Yes I'll take 7 less sacks for more consistent QB pressure and way better run defense at the point of attack. Remember Strahan was double and tripled team all year long in 2007 not just in the SB. Fred Robbins clearly is better than any tackle on 2011 team. Wilson is head and shoulders above Rolle or KP. AP is...you get the point. 2011 defense is younger and less experienced than 2007. They have room to improve. Their immaturity also could be a reason they don't bring their A game fresh off a SB victory. <U>I think you should judge last year's D on how they finished the season not how they began. Fewell tweaked not only for the personell that was injured but for what players weaknesses and strengths were as they became apparrent as the season progressed</U>.</P>

I don't agree with assessment with the talent that Spags had, but whatever. It's not the point of this thread. </P>

I think you hit the nail on the head for the most part, but I think it had<U>far</U> more to do with Fewell than it did the injuries. It took Fewell 14 games in to figure out how to best use his personnel? That's awful. Just my opinion.</P>

gumby742

06-21-2012, 03:40 PM

How can ou leave Tuck out of that? He is a premier DE in this league and when he was healthy he was great. In fact he was probably their best defensive player in the Super Bowl. So the beginn of the season had them missing 2, not 1, DE, using rookie LB's because of injury, and for the entire season using Rolle out of position. The difference at the end of the season was they had Tuck and Osi back and playing healthy. Prince added some depth and played very well in the pos season. J Williams became a better player at the end of the season. I gave the example of the 1st Green Bay game and the 2nd game. Look at who was hurt and plain or not even playing in the 1st game. The look at the 2nd game and loom at who was now healthy and who was now playing. They dominated that 2nd game.</P>

I think it's unclear whether or not Tuck was healthy. Last I remember Rolle called people out and magically Tuck started to play better. That's why ruled out the Tuck factor.</P>

At the end of the day, I'm much more inclined to attribute the Green Bay game difference to coaching than people getting healthier/differences in personnel. The injuries/personnel differences that we had throughout the course of the season, in my opinion, doesn't warrant such a big difference.</P>

And that's why I don't have any confidence in Fewell going into next season. If it took him 14 games to adjust, that's pretty scary. I'm not predicting Fewell to be terrible or our defense to be terrible, just that personally, I have no faith in him.</P>

buddy33

06-21-2012, 03:48 PM

Tuck I think admitted he needed to Lear his head at he end of he season, bu hat was due to the numerous injuries he did actually have. His neck was hurting enough that he actually missed some games. He played almost an entire season with a bad shoulder a couple of years ago. He also had surgery this off season to repair his shoulder. I never question his toughness.

The Green Bay game in the playoffs was a healthier team. Remember, the 1st game was when Boley just can back and admitted he was not at full speed. They Lost KP for the 2nd half of that game. There was no Osi and if it was in his head or if it was his bod Tuck was not right yet. Also, Prince was starting to feel it by the time the playoffs started.

The year before they had some downs on a healthy defense, bu where a much better unit. As was posted, few teams experienced what the Giants did on defense this past season and the ones that did where very bad teams.

ShakeNBake

06-21-2012, 03:58 PM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

Awesome post. These stats are eye opening. I would swear we were the kings of D for the last 10 years, apprently not so. Looking at the stats with a more positive view only 4 season did we rank below 13th in yards allowed and the last time we did this we won the SB. So now looking a the 3 truly poor defensive efforts in terms of yard allowed- 06', 05', 03'- 05' wasn't that bad in terms of points allowed. Spags had a good system, but he didn't do it with a lack of talent. AP in the middle, Webster and Madison at CB, Gibril Wilson at safety, Strahan, Tuck, Osi, Robbinson the line and as a Rookie Ross at CB was lights out. The core of the defense stayed intact for 2008. NFL is a players league. Good things don't happen without good players. I like the 07' defense over the 2011 defense all day long. I take Strahan over JPP. Yes I'll take 7 less sacks for more consistent QB pressure and way better run defense at the point of attack. Remember Strahan was double and tripled team all year long in 2007 not just in the SB. Fred Robbins clearly is better than any tackle on 2011 team. Wilson is head and shoulders above Rolle or KP. AP is...you get the point. 2011 defense is younger and less experienced than 2007. They have room to improve. Their immaturity also could be a reason they don't bring their A game fresh off a SB victory. <u>I think you should judge last year's D on how they finished the season not how they began. Fewell tweaked not only for the personell that was injured but for what players weaknesses and strengths were as they became apparrent as the season progressed</u>.</p>

I don't agree with assessment with the talent that Spags had, but whatever. It's not the point of this thread. </p>

I think you hit the nail on the head for the most part, but I think it had<u>far</u> more to do with Fewell than it did the injuries. It took Fewell 14 games in to figure out how to best use his personnel? That's awful. Just my opinion.</p>

How can you say that when we had so many injuries? Fewell should get a pass on that alone. Like others have said we had an extraordinary amount of injuries, to both our starters and depth especially on defense.

Dline: Tuck banged up all season, Osi out with knee surgery early on and did not contribute till late in the season. Lost our 2nd rounder Marvin Austin for the season.

Linebackers: Lost our starting LB Goff and we did not see improvement at that position until we acquired Chase Blackburn. Boley also did not play a full season, so at some points during the season our entire LB core consisted of inexperienced rookies.

Defensive Backs: Correct me if I am wrong but I believe we lost 5 corners off the bat before the season began. We lost Terrell Thomas for the season, Lost Prince for 8 weeks, among others. Rolle was playing out of his natural position because of our injuries, which hurt our backfield as well.

I probably missed some more guys, but these were the ones I could think off of the top of my head. So we had 5 starters out on defense for the majority of the season(counting Rolle out of position) and more at some points. The point is that we didn't have the pieces for most of the season, not that Fewell took that long to "figure it out".

buffyblue

06-21-2012, 04:52 PM

Justin Tuck admitedly had a lot of self doubt last year. After Antrel Rolle called players out and Coach Coughlin had his talk with Justin Tuck, he really turned it around. I think that Justin Tuck sucked it up and played in a lot of pain but he became the leader on defense we needed. Perry Fewell talked to Antrel Rolle and made him realize that although he may have more chances that Deon Grant and other older players may not and that changed Antrel a lot. His maturity was noticable so that when he did call people out for slacking he was taken seriously and they responded.

One poster stated that the offense hurt the defense in 2010 and that is true to a certain extent just like the defense greatly benefited from the offense in 2011. Wheras the identity of NY Giants has previously been one of a defense first team that now it is clear we are an offense first team.

Obviously our d line is great but I am concerned at linebacker. I think we should be okay in the secondary but we may still be shaky there. Our STs I suspect will continue to be awesome.

dezzzR

06-21-2012, 04:53 PM

The big thing I don't like about PF is that he likes to manage his defense from the back end first. He's concerned with coverage packages over everything else and only with the nascar package to bring 4-man pressure as if it was 7-man pressure did we do anything to opposing QB's. Spags was blitzing all day, changing up who was blitzing and who was dropping into coverage, and he destroyed the Patriots' "fortress of solitude" offensive line with it.

The Giants defense is built from the front end first, and we need a DC that can manage it from that end. PF is NOT that person. Maybe he'd do a spectacular job on another defense but he's just not a good fit with the Giants. I'd still take him over Sheridan though...This is an excellent post. Perry needs to apply more pressure than just the front 4. The more pressure, the easier it is for the secondary. If not, qbs are going to pick the zone packages apart, like they've been doing for the last two years.

chasjay

06-21-2012, 05:45 PM

We average much better in the Sacks department - I don't know about Takeaways. We have been 9th or better in Sacks for 7 of those 10 years. counting down from 2011, regular season, we've been 7, 5, 18, 6, 1, 23, 9, 9, 2, and 15 - an average of 9.5. I guess that's why I felt like our overall average would have been higher than it is - I remember the Sacks I guess.

Drez

06-21-2012, 05:48 PM

These stats are misleading because poor play by the offense can make the defense look better in regards to yardage allowed. Like all the boneheaded turnovers by Eli and the offense in 2010 resulted in shorter fields for the opposing offenses - thus we ranked high in yards allowed (7th), but our points allowed didn't match up (17th). The defense probably had poor 3rd down efficiency that year as well. So it wasn't as good as it seemed on paper when using these two stats as the measuring stick.
Turnovers create additional possessions for opposing offenses, so even with short fields they get more yards.

Drez

06-21-2012, 05:55 PM

Gumby, also don't discount the chemistry/trust factor that's needed on defense. For a defense to work properly, especially one that can be as complicated as PF's, each player has to trust/know the the guy next to him is going to be doing the right thing on any given play. Given the extremely high number of different personnel groupings we were forced into using chemistry was an issue most of the season.

gumby742

06-21-2012, 11:38 PM

Gumby, also don't discount the chemistry/trust factor that's needed on defense. For a defense to work properly, especially one that can be as complicated as PF's, each player has to trust/know the the guy next to him is going to be doing the right thing on any given play. Given the extremely high number of different personnel groupings we were forced into using chemistry was an issue most of the season.

Chemistry falls on the coaches imo.

jomo

06-21-2012, 11:46 PM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

How many of those teams above us won 2 Super Bowls in the last decade. Here is perfect evidence as to why no one should be married to statistics as a religion. They are, in the end meaningless when compared to wins and especially playoff wins.

gumby742

06-22-2012, 12:09 AM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

Awesome post. These stats are eye opening. I would swear we were the kings of D for the last 10 years, apprently not so. Looking at the stats with a more positive view only 4 season did we rank below 13th in yards allowed and the last time we did this we won the SB. So now looking a the 3 truly poor defensive efforts in terms of yard allowed- 06', 05', 03'- 05' wasn't that bad in terms of points allowed. Spags had a good system, but he didn't do it with a lack of talent. AP in the middle, Webster and Madison at CB, Gibril Wilson at safety, Strahan, Tuck, Osi, Robbinson the line and as a Rookie Ross at CB was lights out. The core of the defense stayed intact for 2008. NFL is a players league. Good things don't happen without good players. I like the 07' defense over the 2011 defense all day long. I take Strahan over JPP. Yes I'll take 7 less sacks for more consistent QB pressure and way better run defense at the point of attack. Remember Strahan was double and tripled team all year long in 2007 not just in the SB. Fred Robbins clearly is better than any tackle on 2011 team. Wilson is head and shoulders above Rolle or KP. AP is...you get the point. 2011 defense is younger and less experienced than 2007. They have room to improve. Their immaturity also could be a reason they don't bring their A game fresh off a SB victory. <u>I think you should judge last year's D on how they finished the season not how they began. Fewell tweaked not only for the personell that was injured but for what players weaknesses and strengths were as they became apparrent as the season progressed</u>.</p>

I don't agree with assessment with the talent that Spags had, but whatever.* It's not the point of this thread.* </p>

I think you hit the nail on the head for the most part, but I think it had*<u>far</u> more to do with Fewell than it did the injuries.* It took Fewell 14 games in to figure out how to best use his personnel?* That's awful.* Just my opinion.</p>

How can you say that when we had so many injuries? Fewell should get a pass on that alone. Like others have said we had an extraordinary amount of injuries, to both our starters and depth especially on defense.

Dline: Tuck banged up all season, Osi out with knee surgery early on and did not contribute till late in the season. Lost our 2nd rounder Marvin Austin for the season.

Linebackers: Lost our starting LB Goff and we did not see improvement at that position until we acquired Chase Blackburn. Boley also did not play a full season, so at some points during the season our entire LB core consisted of inexperienced rookies.

Defensive Backs: Correct me if I am wrong but I believe we lost 5 corners off the bat before the season began. We lost Terrell Thomas for the season, Lost Prince for 8 weeks, among others. Rolle was playing out of his natural position because of our injuries, which hurt our backfield as well.

I probably missed some more guys, but these were the ones I could think off of the top of my head. So we had 5 starters out on defense for the majority of the season(counting Rolle out of position) and more at some points. The point is that we didn't have the pieces for most of the season, not that Fewell took that long to "figure it out".

The injuries we had before the season started/beginning of the season are irrelevant.

We showed we can be a great defense even with those injuries.

If you want to say the things that occurred mid season - Osi coming back, Tuck maybe getting healthy, and Chase Blackburn coming back, JWilliams playing better, etc some how caused us to turn it all around that's fine.

But to blame it on pre-season injuries alone, doesn't hold a lot of water. Bottom line is that something happened mid season that caused us to turn it around. The people that were injured, stayed injured (except maybe Tuck, but no one knows for sure).

buddy33

06-22-2012, 12:14 AM

I didn't realize they where playing good defense earl in the season? Not as bad as in the middle of the season when other injuries piled up, but still not good. They started the season without Tuck and Osi. Those 2 players alone are enough to devastate a defense. They are premier DE's in the NFL. You don't just replace those guys. Add to that the loss of their #2 CB and the rest of the CB depth and its no wonder they struggled at times last year. Let's also not forget that those injuries put rookies in a lock out season on the field earlier than they had planned and also forced Rolle to play out of his position.

Drez

06-22-2012, 12:23 AM

Gumby, also don't discount the chemistry/trust factor that's needed on defense. For a defense to work properly, especially one that can be as complicated as PF's, each player has to trust/know the the guy next to him is going to be doing the right thing on any given play. Given the extremely high number of different personnel groupings we were forced into using chemistry was an issue most of the season.

Chemistry falls on the coaches imo.
You've never played organized sports, have you?

GOBIGBLUE52

06-22-2012, 01:38 AM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

You have to remember though that A) The whole team sucked in 03, B) Tim Lewis was terrible in 2005-06 and we had the worst secondary in football and C) Bill ****ing Sheridan.

02 and the Spagnuolo years our defense was great, if they stay healthy this year we'll be fine, but yes, you have a great point.

GreenZone

06-22-2012, 03:08 AM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

How many of those teams above us won 2 Super Bowls in the last decade. Here is perfect evidence as to why no one should be married to statistics as a religion. They are, in the end meaningless when compared to wins and especially playoff wins.

No, not at all. The team is comprised of three separate units. A great offense and a shootout with a great quarterback often can mean that neither defense can stop the other. It is more of this kind of play that created much of the success last year prior to the playoff run.

So, last year, you could look at it like that the defense nearly cost the team a chance to ever get to play in the tournament. This year, the defense has a lot to prove that it belongs on the same playing surface as Eli and the offense.

jomo

06-22-2012, 08:44 AM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

How many of those teams above us won 2 Super Bowls in the last decade. Here is perfect evidence as to why no one should be married to statistics as a religion. They are, in the end meaningless when compared to wins and especially playoff wins.

No, not at all. The team is comprised of three separate units. A great offense and a shootout with a great quarterback often can mean that neither defense can stop the other. It is more of this kind of play that created much of the success last year prior to the playoff run.

So, last year, you could look at it like that the defense nearly cost the team a chance to ever get to play in the tournament. This year, the defense has a lot to prove that it belongs on the same playing surface as Eli and the offense.
Where are these stats normalized for injuries? Where are they normalized for how much of the team's cap is committed to offense versus defense? The keys to winning are much more dynamic.

Joe Morrison

06-22-2012, 09:24 AM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

How many of those teams above us won 2 Super Bowls in the last decade. Here is perfect evidence as to why no one should be married to statistics as a religion. They are, in the end meaningless when compared to wins and especially playoff wins.

No, not at all. The team is comprised of three separate units. A great offense and a shootout with a great quarterback often can mean that neither defense can stop the other. It is more of this kind of play that created much of the success last year prior to the playoff run.

So, last year, you could look at it like that the defense nearly cost the team a chance to ever get to play in the tournament. This year, the defense has a lot to prove that it belongs on the same playing surface as Eli and the offense.
Where are these stats normalized for injuries? Where are they normalized for how much of the team's cap is committed to offense versus defense? The keys to winning are much more dynamic.</P>

Usually we are on the same page, but your comment on Cap Space, the GMEN have always gone D first, this year being the exception.</P>

gumby742

06-22-2012, 09:31 AM

Gumby, also don't discount the chemistry/trust factor that's needed on defense. For a defense to work properly, especially one that can be as complicated as PF's, each player has to trust/know the the guy next to him is going to be doing the right thing on any given play. Given the extremely high number of different personnel groupings we were forced into using chemistry was an issue most of the season.
Chemistry falls on the coaches imo.
You've never played organized sports, have you?
</P>

I certainly have. And it's up to the coaches to harness talent to be as efficient as possible. That's essentially what chemistry is. And if the players don't trust each other and don't play up to par, it's also up to the coaches to fix that.</P>

That's why whenever you have a team that doesn't live up to it's expectations or talent level, you have people questioning coaches. Example: Eagles of last season. Or Girardi, Torre of the yankees - constantly on that hot seat.</P>

gumby742

06-22-2012, 09:42 AM

I didn't realize they where playing good defense earl in the season? Not as bad as in the middle of the season when other injuries piled up, but still not good. They started the season without Tuck and Osi. Those 2 players alone are enough to devastate a defense. They are premier DE's in the NFL. You don't just replace those guys. Add to that the loss of their #2 CB and the rest of the CB depth and its no wonder they struggled at times last year. Let's also not forget that those injuries put rookies in a lock out season on the field earlier than they had planned and also forced Rolle to play out of his position.</P>

Not sure if you're talking to me, but I think we were bad in the beginning of the season also. We might have gotten worse as the season progressed because of injuries to Tuck, KP, Boley, etc, but that doesn't explain why we start off poorly also.</P>

Like I was saying, if people want to believe that Tuck somehow turned it around and Osi coming back (and Blackburn, JWilliams playing betteretc), made such a huge impact, that's fine and it makes perfect sense. But people blaming injuries dating back to pre-season, don't have a case. We some how managed to turn it around at teh end of the season. The people that were already injured, stayed injured/</P>

In my opinion, any defense with KP, Rolle, Boley, Canty, JPP, Joseph, and Webster has no right to be a bad defense. That's what it eventually boils down to.</P>

buddy33

06-22-2012, 09:56 AM

I'm still not understanding how you say that injuries in pre season had nothing to do with a slow start. Tuck and Osi didn't even play in the very 1st game of the season. Both where injured in pre season as was TT and Goff. Now TT and Goff did not come back, but their injuries did in fact impact the team. Ross was not very good last year until the post season. I mean the Giants kept a guy who just tore his ACL over him. What does that tell you? As the season progressed J Williams got better and the injury to Goff was the reason why he was playing so much so yes an injury had something to do with the slow start.

You mention Rolle as being a good player but you have to add that he was playing out of position due to injuries. So once again, injuries played a part.

As far as guys hat where injured staying injured, that's true and false. Yes, TT and Goff never came back, but Tuck and Osi did. So did Prince. Those DE's make a huge difference and Prince was excellent in the post season.

The players you mentioned are very good, but you only listed 1 CB. That is simply not enough to be a dominant defense in a passing league. Then 1 of the 2 Safeties you listed was not playing his regular position most of the time due to injuries. Basically the secondary was a mess last year. Now also take into account all the players you mentioned and take away Tuck and Osi. I mean we are talking about 2 elite DE's on a team that prides themselves on their pass rush and has absolutely no depth in their secondary.

gumby742

06-22-2012, 10:29 AM

I'm still not understanding how you say that injuries in pre season had nothing to do with a slow start. Tuck and Osi didn't even play in the very 1st game of the season. Both where injured in pre season as was TT and Goff. Now TT and Goff did not come back, but their injuries did in fact impact the team. Ross was not very good last year until the post season. I mean the Giants kept a guy who just tore his ACL over him. What does that tell you? As the season progressed J Williams got better and the injury to Goff was the reason why he was playing so much so yes an injury had something to do with the slow start. You mention Rolle as being a good player but you have to add that he was playing out of position due to injuries. So once again, injuries played a part. As far as guys hat where injured staying injured, that's true and false. Yes, TT and Goff never came back, but Tuck and Osi did. So did Prince. Those DE's make a huge difference and Prince was excellent in the post season. The players you mentioned are very good, but you only listed 1 CB. That is simply not enough to be a dominant defense in a passing league. Then 1 of the 2 Safeties you listed was not playing his regular position most of the time due to injuries. Basically the secondary was a mess last year. Now also take into account all the players you mentioned and take away Tuck and Osi. I mean we are talking about 2 elite DE's on a team that prides themselves on their pass rush and has absolutely no depth in their secondary.</P>

Your opinion is definitely a good one and you have a solid case. I thought i responded to you, but after looking back I didn't. Tuck potentially being healthy, Osi coming back, Williams getting better, Prince playing better, were all key potential mid season changes that could cause the defense to play well again. I agree.</P>

Where I have issues is that when people say we had a ton of injuries and that's the <U>biggest </U>reason why we had a bad defense. Yes, we had a lot of injuries, but a lot of them is depth. I'm not saying depth isn't important. But revisit <U>who we had on defense</U> for most of the year and ask yourself if a defense with that sort of personnel - <U>even though some where hurt, should be expected to be near the bottom</U>. Things just don't add up. We have valid excuses, but we shouldn't have been as bad as we were. <U>Ultimately, I think coaching should be given more of the blame than they have. That's what I'm getting at</U>.</P>

Off the top of my head - Canty, Boley, KP, Webster, JPP, Joseph were all healthy for the most part all season. Any defense with those players have no business being close to last.</P>

Drez

06-22-2012, 10:31 AM

Gumby, also don't discount the chemistry/trust factor that's needed on defense. For a defense to work properly, especially one that can be as complicated as PF's, each player has to trust/know the the guy next to him is going to be doing the right thing on any given play. Given the extremely high number of different personnel groupings we were forced into using chemistry was an issue most of the season.
Chemistry falls on the coaches imo.
You've never played organized sports, have you?
</p>

I certainly have. And it's up to the coaches to harness talent to be as efficient as possible. That's essentially what chemistry is. And if the players don't trust each other and don't play up to par, it's also up to the coaches to fix that.</p>

That's why whenever you have a team that doesn't live up to it's expectations or talent level, you have people questioning coaches. Example: Eagles of last season. Or Girardi, Torre of the yankees - constantly on that hot seat.</p>
If you've ever played organized sports then I have no idea how you can think that chemistry is on the coaches.

Yes, it's the coaching staff's job to harness talent, but that is absolutely not what chemistry is. Chemistry and trust is built by the interplay between the individuals on the field, and only they are responsible for it.

gumby742

06-22-2012, 10:37 AM

Gumby, also don't discount the chemistry/trust factor that's needed on defense. For a defense to work properly, especially one that can be as complicated as PF's, each player has to trust/know the the guy next to him is going to be doing the right thing on any given play. Given the extremely high number of different personnel groupings we were forced into using chemistry was an issue most of the season.
Chemistry falls on the coaches imo.
You've never played organized sports, have you?
</P>

I certainly have. And it's up to the coaches to harness talent to be as efficient as possible. That's essentially what chemistry is. And if the players don't trust each other and don't play up to par, it's also up to the coaches to fix that.</P>

That's why whenever you have a team that doesn't live up to it's expectations or talent level, you have people questioning coaches. Example: Eagles of last season. Or Girardi, Torre of the yankees - constantly on that hot seat.</P>

If you've ever played organized sports then I have no idea how you can think that chemistry is on the coaches.

Yes, it's the coaching staff's job to harness talent, but that is absolutely not what chemistry is. Chemistry and trust is built by the interplay between the individuals on the field, and only they are responsible for it.
</P>

No but it's up to the coaching staff to put a quality product on the field. If players aren't meshing, do something about it. Switch it up. Play some players and sit others. Ultimately, it's under his/her control. </P>

buddy33

06-22-2012, 10:42 AM

Well not all the injuries where just to depth. TT was a starter as was Goff. That's 2 starters. Then Tuck was playing injured all year. Fine, some say it was physical, some say it was mental, I say it was both. In any event he was hurting most of the regular season and did miss some games. Osi only played 8 regular season games. Now we can go back and forth on Osi not being a starter now with JPP but they use him so much by moving guys around he plays almost as much as a starter. So that's 4 guys, 2 that never played, and the other 2 that played hurt or missed time.

Ok, now to who they actually had. Well that is a nice group of players, but as I said, just 1 CB in a passing league is not enough and you can not just replace Tuck and Osi. Rolle was playing out of position much of the season.

I don't think they where nearly as bad the prior year when they where healhier. Not perfect, but not nearly as bad.

gumby742

06-22-2012, 11:11 AM

Well not all the injuries where just to depth. TT was a starter as was Goff. That's 2 starters. Then Tuck was playing injured all year. Fine, some say it was physical, some say it was mental, I say it was both. In any event he was hurting most of the regular season and did miss some games. Osi only played 8 regular season games. Now we can go back and forth on Osi not being a starter now with JPP but they use him so much by moving guys around he plays almost as much as a starter. So that's 4 guys, 2 that never played, and the other 2 that played hurt or missed time. Ok, now to who they actually had. Well that is a nice group of players, but as I said, just 1 CB in a passing league is not enough and you can not just replace Tuck and Osi. Rolle was playing out of position much of the season. I don't think they where nearly as bad the prior year when they where healhier. Not perfect, but not nearly as bad.</P>

What the heck? I thought i responded to this. The post didn't show up.</P>

Anyway, I think we just disagree on how much an impact some of those mid season changes had, but I do see where you are coming from. I also see it as much less physical than it was mental/coaching.</P>

We were decnet in PW first year, but I think anything short of a dominant defense next season would be a disappointment. Our defense is stacked.</P>

buddy33

06-22-2012, 11:21 AM

On paper I do think hey are stacked. I think if they stay healhy they will be much better this year.

Still have to see what TT and Austin have to offer. If they can come back healthy and contribute along with the starters he already have hey could be very good.

GreenZone

06-22-2012, 11:50 AM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

How many of those teams above us won 2 Super Bowls in the last decade. Here is perfect evidence as to why no one should be married to statistics as a religion. They are, in the end meaningless when compared to wins and especially playoff wins.

No, not at all. The team is comprised of three separate units. A great offense and a shootout with a great quarterback often can mean that neither defense can stop the other. It is more of this kind of play that created much of the success last year prior to the playoff run.

So, last year, you could look at it like that the defense nearly cost the team a chance to ever get to play in the tournament. This year, the defense has a lot to prove that it belongs on the same playing surface as Eli and the offense.
Where are these stats normalized for injuries? Where are they normalized for how much of the team's cap is committed to offense versus defense? The keys to winning are much more dynamic.

You can normalize for injuries for one season or even a few of them. But the amount of data in a decade speaks volumes to accurately state the general effectiveness of a defense over the entire period.

And when people blame some of the coaches along the way, you can also go compare the Tim Lewis years vs. the rest of the decade. You might see the defense only slightly worse under Lewis.

No matter how you slice it, other teams hire poor coordinators; other teams also have injuries.
These amount to reasons or excuses for some of the mediocrity, but the defense still had a long way to reach to the level of being an elite one.

GreenZone

06-22-2012, 12:23 PM

There needs to be more stats. I despise defensive rankings being based on yards. The difference between the #1 and #15 defense is oftentimes 50 yards.

You need to look at red zone defense, rushing yards, yards per pass attempt(including sack yardage and incompletions) and completion pct, as well as points turnovers and sacks.

There really doesn't need to be more stats over that long a period. In and of itself it is full of data, more than enough to spot a significant trend that can't be explained away.

A difference of (actually, 60.8 yards given up between 1st and 16th ranked defense last year) in every single game played is HUGE. The team that has more total yards in a game is winning most of the time. Games turn on tiny differences. That's what attention to detail in coaching is all about.

But if that first place team in defensive yards allowed is one also with a bad offense, then it may also be gaining less offensive yardage vs. other teams, thus negating some or all of the advantage. The bigger factor, turnovers can overcome a lot of porous defense, such as the Patriots and Packers took advantage of last year.

Morehead State

06-22-2012, 01:07 PM

Like is often true in the new NFL with a huge amount of talent all over the league, we have been inconsistent on defense.</P>

BUT, unlike most other teams, we have lifted up our game defensively when it matters the most. Can anyone say that about the supposedly great Pittsburgh defense last year in the playoffs?</P>

Tebow embarressed them.</P>

So for that, we are definately a good defense.</P>

Blue_Buddha

06-22-2012, 01:43 PM

It really comes down to one question if the game is on the line would you have confidence in having the defense on the field stopping the go ahead score . ..For me I wish it was different but the final drive of the Superbowl was very stressful until that ball bounced in the endzone.

gumby742

06-22-2012, 01:46 PM

Like is often true in the new NFL with a huge amount of talent all over the league, we have been inconsistent on defense.</P>

BUT, unlike most other teams, we have lifted up our game defensively when it matters the most. Can anyone say that about the supposedly great Pittsburgh defense last year in the playoffs?</P>

Tebow embarressed them.</P>

So for that, we are definately a good defense.</P>

</P>

Lebeau dared Tebow to beat them and he did. From what i remember, he basically stuck only 1 or 2 guys in the secondary and stacked everyone else around the LOS.</P>

We were good when Spags was here. Fewell, I dunno. Under PF, his defense helped us win a SB, but they certainly didn't do us any favors to help us to the post season. They weren't very good for 14 games. Also, under PF we had that huge collapse against Philly.</P>

during the PF regime, for me anyway, it's hard to say we're a good defense. The jury is out on him still. But next season, if PF doesn't put together a dominant defense, and we don't have many inuries, that's just unacceptable.</P>

giantsfan420

06-22-2012, 02:34 PM

Like is often true in the new NFL with a huge amount of talent all over the league, we have been inconsistent on defense.</P>

BUT, unlike most other teams, we have lifted up our game defensively when it matters the most.* Can anyone say that about the supposedly great Pittsburgh defense last year in the playoffs?</P>

Tebow embarressed them.</P>

So for that, we are definately a good defense.</P>

</P>

Lebeau dared Tebow to beat them and he did.* From what i remember, he basically stuck only 1 or 2 guys in the secondary and stacked everyone else around the LOS.</P>

We were good when Spags was here.* Fewell, I dunno.* Under PF, his defense helped us win a SB, but they certainly didn't do us any favors to help us to the post season.* They weren't very good for 14* games.* Also, under PF we had that huge collapse against Philly.</P>

during the PF regime, for me anyway, it's hard to say we're a good defense.* The jury is out on him still.* But next season, if PF doesn't put together a dominant defense, and we don't have many inuries, that's just unacceptable.</P>

your sigs funny.

ok, the rules changed in 1978 or something. they changed for everyone, not just eli. you honestly think I care if you feel that tarnishes what eli has done statisitically?

ur point is moot. if it was a sound argument, more than 6 qb's would have thrown fr 3k and 20 td or more for 6 straight seasons. more qbs would have multiple sb mvps. more qbs would have thrown for 5k than the 5 qbs who have surpassed 5 k...etc etc etc.

the talent level has dramatically risen everywhere, not just the qb position. players across the board are breaking records now. as usual, u take one pretty irrelevant stat or piece of information, misinterpret it, then misapply it...

odd that your focal point about the golden age for passing is eli and not brees or brady or petyon...your hilarious man. thank you for the chuckle...

Drez

06-22-2012, 02:40 PM

Gumby, also don't discount the chemistry/trust factor that's needed on defense. For a defense to work properly, especially one that can be as complicated as PF's, each player has to trust/know the the guy next to him is going to be doing the right thing on any given play. Given the extremely high number of different personnel groupings we were forced into using chemistry was an issue most of the season.
Chemistry falls on the coaches imo.
You've never played organized sports, have you?
</p>

I certainly have. And it's up to the coaches to harness talent to be as efficient as possible. That's essentially what chemistry is. And if the players don't trust each other and don't play up to par, it's also up to the coaches to fix that.</p>

That's why whenever you have a team that doesn't live up to it's expectations or talent level, you have people questioning coaches. Example: Eagles of last season. Or Girardi, Torre of the yankees - constantly on that hot seat.</p>

If you've ever played organized sports then I have no idea how you can think that chemistry is on the coaches.

Yes, it's the coaching staff's job to harness talent, but that is absolutely not what chemistry is. Chemistry and trust is built by the interplay between the individuals on the field, and only they are responsible for it.
</p>

No but it's up to the coaching staff to put a quality product on the field. If players aren't meshing, do something about it. Switch it up. Play some players and sit others. Ultimately, it's under his/her control. </p>
The problem was there was too much switching it up last season due to the injuries. Many guys had to play out of position and/or learn on the job.

Also, let's say you're right in that PF should have switched personnel more, if Rolle wasn't doing well covering out of the nickle who do put there in his place? If one of our LBs were struggling, who were we going to put in his spot? Another rookie LB?

I would also like to give an analogy about the whole coaching/chemistry thing. Let's say your manager assigns you to work with a group of people on a project. Is he the one responsible for you and the other people on the team getting along/working well together or is it up to those in the group to do that? I understand the manager may be assessed, to one degree or another, by the success that the group has on the project, but at the end of the day it's up to those in the group to do what needs to get done.

gumby742

06-22-2012, 02:41 PM

Like is often true in the new NFL with a huge amount of talent all over the league, we have been inconsistent on defense.</P>

BUT, unlike most other teams, we have lifted up our game defensively when it matters the most. Can anyone say that about the supposedly great Pittsburgh defense last year in the playoffs?</P>

Tebow embarressed them.</P>

So for that, we are definately a good defense.</P>

</P>

Lebeau dared Tebow to beat them and he did. From what i remember, he basically stuck only 1 or 2 guys in the secondary and stacked everyone else around the LOS.</P>

We were good when Spags was here. Fewell, I dunno. Under PF, his defense helped us win a SB, but they certainly didn't do us any favors to help us to the post season. They weren't very good for 14 games. Also, under PF we had that huge collapse against Philly.</P>

during the PF regime, for me anyway, it's hard to say we're a good defense. The jury is out on him still. But next season, if PF doesn't put together a dominant defense, and we don't have many inuries, that's just unacceptable.</P>

your sigs funny. ok, the rules changed in 1978 or something. they changed for everyone, not just eli. you honestly think I care if you feel that tarnishes what eli has done statisitically? ur point is moot. if it was a sound argument, more than 6 qb's would have thrown fr 3k and 20 td or more for 6 straight seasons. more qbs would have multiple sb mvps. more qbs would have thrown for 5k than the 5 qbs who have surpassed 5 k...etc etc etc. the talent level has dramatically risen everywhere, not just the qb position. players across the board are breaking records now. as usual, u take one pretty irrelevant stat or piece of information, misinterpret it, then misapply it... odd that your focal point about the golden age for passing is eli and not brees or brady or petyon...your hilarious man. thank you for the chuckle...</P>

good lord man. The link in my sig applies for <U>all</U> qbs of this era. Let me say this again <U>ALL</U>. <U>You</U> yourself, <U>made it about Eli</U> and only Eli. <U>No one else, but you</U>. Next time you claim Eli realists hijack threads just to bash Eli, look at my sig. It's nothing but an example thread of <U>you getting defensive and turning a non Eli thread into an Eli thread</U>. I'm done talking about this because it's completely unrelated to the topic at hand.</P>

gumby742

06-22-2012, 02:47 PM

Gumby, also don't discount the chemistry/trust factor that's needed on defense. For a defense to work properly, especially one that can be as complicated as PF's, each player has to trust/know the the guy next to him is going to be doing the right thing on any given play. Given the extremely high number of different personnel groupings we were forced into using chemistry was an issue most of the season.
Chemistry falls on the coaches imo.
You've never played organized sports, have you?
</P>

I certainly have. And it's up to the coaches to harness talent to be as efficient as possible. That's essentially what chemistry is. And if the players don't trust each other and don't play up to par, it's also up to the coaches to fix that.</P>

That's why whenever you have a team that doesn't live up to it's expectations or talent level, you have people questioning coaches. Example: Eagles of last season. Or Girardi, Torre of the yankees - constantly on that hot seat.</P>

If you've ever played organized sports then I have no idea how you can think that chemistry is on the coaches.

Yes, it's the coaching staff's job to harness talent, but that is absolutely not what chemistry is. Chemistry and trust is built by the interplay between the individuals on the field, and only they are responsible for it.
</P>

No but it's up to the coaching staff to put a quality product on the field. If players aren't meshing, do something about it. Switch it up. Play some players and sit others. Ultimately, it's under his/her control. </P>

The problem was there was too much switching it up last season due to the injuries. Many guys had to play out of position and/or learn on the job.

Also, let's say you're right in that PF should have switched personnel more, if Rolle wasn't doing well covering out of the nickle who do put there in his place? If one of our LBs were struggling, who were we going to put in his spot? Another rookie LB?

I would also like to give an analogy about the whole coaching/chemistry thing. Let's say your manager assigns you to work with a group of people on a project. Is he the one responsible for you and the other people on the team getting along/working well together or is it up to those in the group to do that? I understand the manager may be assessed, to one degree or another, by the success that the group has on the project, but at the end of the day it's up to those in the group to do what needs to get done.
</P>

Well, the original question was regarding chemistry right? If your players are just piss poor, then as a coach you can't do much more than work with what you have. However, if chemistry is the issue (assuming you have the talent), then it is on the coach.</P>

Absolutely the manager is responsible. The manager hires those same people he manages. If those people aren't capable of getting it done, it's on the manager. He hired them. But if those people are extremely capable, it is also up to the manager to use his worker bees in the best way possible. If Worker A and Worker B don't get along, as a manager, it be stupid to get them working on the same project - even if both of them are star employees.</P>

pino

06-22-2012, 04:07 PM

Numbers...

I laugh at numbers! Giants have MAGIC. That's all you need to know.

buddy33

06-22-2012, 04:27 PM

Ok, but how do he get that chemistry when players are not able to play and gel together? They started the season without 2 premier DE's, their #2 CB, all their secondary depth, and their starting LB. I believe that Tuck and Osi only played in a couple of regular season games together this past season. Let's also remember the rookies in a lock out season. That is about the worst way to Ty and have any chemistry.

giantsfan420

06-22-2012, 05:03 PM

Like is often true in the new NFL with a huge amount of talent all over the league, we have been inconsistent on defense.</P>

BUT, unlike most other teams, we have lifted up our game defensively when it matters the most.* Can anyone say that about the supposedly great Pittsburgh defense last year in the playoffs?</P>

Tebow embarressed them.</P>

So for that, we are definately a good defense.</P>

</P>

Lebeau dared Tebow to beat them and he did.* From what i remember, he basically stuck only 1 or 2 guys in the secondary and stacked everyone else around the LOS.</P>

We were good when Spags was here.* Fewell, I dunno.* Under PF, his defense helped us win a SB, but they certainly didn't do us any favors to help us to the post season.* They weren't very good for 14* games.* Also, under PF we had that huge collapse against Philly.</P>

during the PF regime, for me anyway, it's hard to say we're a good defense.* The jury is out on him still.* But next season, if PF doesn't put together a dominant defense, and we don't have many inuries, that's just unacceptable.</P>

your sigs funny. ok, the rules changed in 1978 or something. they changed for everyone, not just eli. you honestly think I care if you feel that tarnishes what eli has done statisitically? ur point is moot. if it was a sound argument, more than 6 qb's would have thrown fr 3k and 20 td or more for 6 straight seasons. more qbs would have multiple sb mvps. more qbs would have thrown for 5k than the 5 qbs who have surpassed 5 k...etc etc etc. the talent level has dramatically risen everywhere, not just the qb position. players across the board are breaking records now. as usual, u take one pretty irrelevant stat or piece of information, misinterpret it, then misapply it... odd that your focal point about the golden age for passing is eli and not brees or brady or petyon...your hilarious man. thank you for the chuckle...</P>

good lord man.* The link in my sig applies for <U>all</U> qbs of this era.* Let me say this again <U>ALL</U>.* <U>You</U> yourself, *<U>made it about Eli</U> and only Eli.* <U>No one else, but you</U>.* Next time you claim Eli realists hijack threads just to bash Eli, look at my sig.* It's nothing but an example thread of <U>you getting defensive and turning a non Eli thread into an Eli thread</U>.* I'm done talking about this because it's completely unrelated to the topic at hand.</P>

you put a note about me in your sig with "pissed off" and I'm the one defensive?
lmfao at u man...thank u for doing that tho, putting me in ur sig like that is a conceding of defeat...and sorry to the OP about the off topic intervening. kid put something about me in his sig which leaves no place to respond to it besides a thread.

GreenZone

06-23-2012, 03:28 AM

Numbers...

I laugh at numbers! Giants have MAGIC. That's all you need to know.

I agree the Giants had some other power guiding them for two recent seasons.

You wouldn't laugh at numbers that show the Giants on average giving up, let's say, more than three points more on defense than they score on offense each game next season.

You also have to look at the eight out of ten years in which the Giants fell short. You might say: "No team gets to the top every year." And, I'd say that these numbers are one of the chief reasons why the Giants haven't. Overcoming a 16th ranked defense is not an easy task.

A mediocre defense doesn't normally get the job done. And this year needs to pick up where the last one left off.

Bigbluereckingcrew

06-23-2012, 09:05 AM

Yeah stats are nice and all, but we have never been a show u team. Giants aren't the statisical jugernuats that the pats or the packers are which may have something to do with Eli getting no respect. But cruch time, big blue crunches and that is good enough for me. What is it with fans, two exciting SB's in 4 years and now we are complaining cause it wasn't pretty...wtf

NYG 5

06-23-2012, 09:37 AM

To be honest, the only teams that consistently fielded strong defenses have been baltimore and pittsburgh, and the dynasty pats.

GreenZone

06-23-2012, 10:38 AM

Yeah stats are nice and all, but we have never been a show u team. Giants aren't the statisical jugernuats that the pats or the packers are which may have something to do with Eli getting no respect. But cruch time, big blue crunches and that is good enough for me. What is it with fans, two exciting SB's in 4 years and now we are complaining cause it wasn't pretty...wtf

If you read the thread, you might find that: 1) like most threads, it got hijacked with side discussion about last season, possibly carried over from some other thread; 2) It has nothing to do about complaining about stats with regard to Superbowl years, and 3) has absolutely nothing to do with Eli and only tangentially with the offensive side of the ball.

This is the typical symptom of lazy posting. The reference earlier to the Pats and Packers was to the atrocious defense that they have shown recently, not some envy about the teams' offense.

If you don't want to read all the postings, at least read the first one.

This is about a broader look at a decade of Giant football and the challenge that this coming year's defense has to actually hold its end of the bargain on a seasonal basis, as it finally showed at the end of last season. This is especially true now that people say the defense is "stacked." and Osi is happy.

Bigbluereckingcrew

06-23-2012, 06:38 PM

Yeah stats are nice and all, but we have never been a show u team. Giants aren't the statisical jugernuats that the pats or the packers are which may have something to do with Eli getting no respect. But cruch time, big blue crunches and that is good enough for me. What is it with fans, two exciting SB's in 4 years and now we are complaining cause it wasn't pretty...wtf

If you read the thread, you might find that: 1) like most threads, it got hijacked with side discussion about last season, possibly carried over from some other thread; 2) It has nothing to do about complaining about stats with regard to Superbowl years, and 3) has absolutely nothing to do with Eli and only tangentially with the offensive side of the ball.

This is the typical symptom of lazy posting. The reference earlier to the Pats and Packers was to the atrocious defense that they have shown recently, not some envy about the teams' offense.

If you don't want to read all the postings, at least read the first one.

This is about a broader look at a decade of Giant football and the challenge that this coming year's defense has to actually hold its end of the bargain on a seasonal basis, as it finally showed at the end of last season. This is especially true now that people say the defense is "stacked." and Osi is happy.

Green, I understand that this is not an offensive stats thread, my reference to the pack and pats was an overall generalization of the glorification of stats.

I do think its relivant to this thread, dicussing that on paper the giants defense is average over the past 10 years feeds right into my point::stats are not a great indicator of a quality team/player:: There were a few posters that pointed out a strong offesive team's defense is going to give up more yards/points than weaker teams. This is dead on, so to say that the giants defense is overrated based simply off of past defense only stats is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Finally, my point about Eli not getting the credit he deserves because of stats only furthers my contension that stats are poor indicators. We know Eli holds the most 4 quarter TD's but that isn't gaudy like Brady's 50 TD in a single season. Regardless if Eli has two rings and Brady got a HOF kicker close enough three times. Clock management, line adjustments, demeanor, confidence and other critical no-stat elements are what seperate the elite from everyone else...stats are for sportwriters and accountants.

Morehead State

06-23-2012, 08:40 PM

Yeah stats are nice and all, but we have never been a show u team. Giants aren't the statisical jugernuats that the pats or the packers are which may have something to do with Eli getting no respect. But cruch time, big blue crunches and that is good enough for me. What is it with fans, two exciting SB's in 4 years and now we are complaining cause it wasn't pretty...wtf

If you read the thread, you might find that: 1) like most threads, it got hijacked with side discussion about last season, possibly carried over from some other thread; 2) It has nothing to do about complaining about stats with regard to Superbowl years, and 3) has absolutely nothing to do with Eli and only tangentially with the offensive side of the ball.

This is the typical symptom of lazy posting. The reference earlier to the Pats and Packers was to the atrocious defense that they have shown recently, not some envy about the teams' offense.

If you don't want to read all the postings, at least read the first one.

This is about a broader look at a decade of Giant football and the challenge that this coming year's defense has to actually hold its end of the bargain on a seasonal basis, as it finally showed at the end of last season. This is especially true now that people say the defense is "stacked." and Osi is happy.
Green, I understand that this is not an offensive stats thread, my reference to the pack and pats was an overall generalization of the glorification of stats. I do think its relivant to this thread, dicussing that on paper the giants defense is average over the past 10 years feeds right into my point::stats are not a great indicator of a quality team/player:: There were a few posters that pointed out a strong offesive team's defense is going to give up more yards/points than weaker teams. This is dead on, so to say that the giants defense is overrated based simply off of past defense only stats is a misrepresentation of the facts. Finally, my point about Eli not getting the credit he deserves because of stats only furthers my contension that stats are poor indicators. We know Eli holds the most 4 quarter TD's but that isn't gaudy like Brady's 50 TD in a single season. Regardless if Eli has two rings and Brady got a HOF kicker close enough three times. Clock management, line adjustments, demeanor, confidence and other critical no-stat elements are what seperate the elite from everyone else...stats are for sportwriters and accountants.</P>

isn't "4th quarter TD's" a stat? Just asking.</P>

Anyway, if there is a stat that is telling about QB's its TD/Int. ratio. It shows productivity vs. ball security.</P>

The great ones today have a great ratio. Thats just my opinion.</P>

Obviously, there are a lot of other factors that go into a QB's performance. </P>

And BTW....Tom Brady is flat out great. I don't care about kickers, receivers or running game. That kid is tremendous and has been since he took his first snap in 1999. And he's great year in and year out.</P>

Captain Chaos

06-24-2012, 07:52 AM

The incentive to come back and play with passion following a long and successful season is always a challenge.

For the Giant defense, which had some horrendous games last year and ended up 27th in yards allowed in the 2011 regular season, there's much to be accomplished. As a matter of fact, looking at the last decade, the vaunted defense of the past hasn't been seen much in recent years.

And if you average the ranking in yards allowed over the last decade, in terms of average placement vs. other teams, the Giants ranked 16.2, just slightly below 16th place, which would be the middle of the pack. In terms of points per game, they rank even worse at 18.1st place.

Very mediocre. And the question is: Why should this year be any better, especially coming off a horrid 2011 season? Sad to put it this way, can the team rise to 16th place?

Mediocre enought to win two superbowls over that span....

GreenZone

06-24-2012, 03:31 PM

To be honest, the only teams that consistently fielded strong defenses have been baltimore and pittsburgh, and the dynasty pats.

True, there haven't been too many dominant defenses over that period and fewer still consistently throughout it (rule out the Patsy's).

Any given team would average 16th if they were no better nor worse than the norm over a long stretch like that. The Giants have been generally woeful, especially in points allowed. Imagine if there wasn't that Eli and Cruz magic last year.

You can bet that the Giant coaching staff understands this reality and is doing all it can to not have to rely on a solid offensive play, but to bring consistency and dominance to the defense for the first time in a long, long time.

Neverend

06-24-2012, 04:42 PM

I do think that stat about the giants missing starters and key players to injury more than any other team in nfl history other than the winless lions and some bills team is a little misleading

Osi was a starter ahead of JPP on the depth chart to start the season. JPP wasn't even on the pro bowl ballot. We lost Osi to injuries and it gave JPP more snaps, and subsequently, more terror & disrpution to opposing offenses.

Same with Manningham. Eventually Cruz became the receiver on the field in base sets most of the time later in the year, even tho Manningham was "the starter". And the Giants have had good passing games (400+ 300+ vs Saints, Packers) against playoff defenses without Manningham

And the Goff injury. It adds 16 starts to that incredible stat about players missing games. However, I'd argue Blackburn is an upgrade over Goff once he was inserted into the lineup. I think Goff is a little more athletic/stronger, but they're close in terms of production in run defense and Blackburn showed much better in coverage than Goff did in 2010, during the late season stretch. Goff's injury hurt at first with Greg Jones struggling, but the second half of the season incl. playoffs -- the injury in some ways wasn't really detrimental factor for the giants defense

And the offense... Beatty played well. A little inconsistent, tho. Once he got inserted out of the lineup, the overall running game statistics improved. Now, could this be a factor of Diehl moving away from guard and Boothe taking the reigns as oppose to Beatty being a liability in run blocking? Sure. But looking at the facts objectively, the run blocking improved when Beatty was out of the lineup. Logically, does that make Beatty's starts missed a way to justify the Giants struggles last year? Not really. It helped paved the way for a really talented guy in boothe to start and help improve the offensive line. (in my personal opinion, its more of a factor of diehl sucking less at tackle but thats irrelevant)

So I dont think adding up "starts missed by key players and starters" should be a good enough excuse for a 9-7, mediocre regular season. As shown, you can easily distort and twist those injuries into positives. Injuries were a big factor, but I think perry fewell's gameplans/playcalling, the inconsistency of the players themselves, and just poor execution when a game could have gone either way are just as good of reasons to blame for the giants struggles last year. Tuck didn't even get healthy at the end of the year, he just turned it on mentally when the season was on the line against the jets thanks to coughlin.

Jobarulz

06-24-2012, 04:52 PM

Not having a stud linebacker in the last decade has a lot to do with this. The Giants are very lucky they've had a great pass rush in that time or they'd probably be close to the bottom.

Diamondring

06-24-2012, 06:24 PM

Man, that overrated and underrated can be kind of tricky since the schedule can change things a great deal.

Drez

06-24-2012, 07:32 PM

Not having a stud linebacker in the last decade has a lot to do with this. The Giants are very lucky they've had a great pass rush in that time or they'd probably be close to the bottom.
Not having a stud LB is almost meaningless for this. Explain then how our best year in the rankings our LBs were Pierce, Clark, and whoever else we fielded at the other LB spot?

GreenZone

06-24-2012, 08:04 PM

Man, that overrated and underrated can be kind of tricky since the schedule can change things a great deal.

Well, teams with winning records have harder schedules the following years, so that would be a factor to skew the averages. Competing teams with winning records would have stronger offenses. This would be a lesser factor over a ten year time frame.